Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Miss Georgina Heath

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how often, and for what reasons, Miss Georgina Heath was in hospital before July, 1962; why she was retained in prison between 11th and 24th August, 1962; why, after having been sentenced to borstal training, she was retained in Strangeways Prison, Manchester, until 9th November and treated like an adult offender; for how long she was retained there before being sent for borstal training; why she was treated there as an adult offender on visiting days; and what compensation he proposes to offer to Miss Heath and to her visitors for the treatment they were accorded at Strangeways Prison;

(2) if the court which sentenced Miss Georgina Heath had before it information concerning her previous medical history whether her retention in Strangeways Prison before being removed to a borstal institution will be taken into account in deciding how long she will remain in the borstal institution; what action is being taken to ensure that other young persons are not similarly detained before being ordered to undergo special borstal training; and if he will arrange for sympathetic treatment for Miss Heath, to assist in preventing her from taking in future the action for which she was convicted.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): Georgina Heath spent three short periods in hospital before July, 1962, for observation of her mental state. She was detained in prison on remand between 11th and 24th August and again on committal after conviction between 24th August and 24th September when

she was sentenced to borstal training. The sentencing court had information about her previous medical history. After being sentenced to borstal training she was detained in the female wing at Manchester Prison until 9th November awaiting a vacancy at a training borstal.
In this wing as far as possible girls are kept apart from older women and opportunities for communication are infrequent. She asked for and was allowed one visit during this period in Manchester. When remand centres become available there will be no need to detain persons in her situation in prison. The time she spent in prison after sentence may be taken into account in deciding how long she will remain in borstal. Her training will endeavour to establish in her the will and capacity to lead a good and useful life on release and to abstain from further offences. No question of compensation arises in this case.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Minister bear in mind that I appreciate that sympathetic reply by the Home Office in London? Will he further bear in mind that I am not attempting to interfere in any way in the function of the judiciary, nor am I condoning what the girl has done wrong? Does he agree with me, however, that her legal detention in Strangeways is a scandalous state of affairs? It is concrete evidence of the need to deal with this kind of case in a far more modern way. In view of what the girl has suffered up to now, will the hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to give his personal attention to seeing that she gets sympathetic treatment and consideration as soon as possible?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am much obliged by what the hon. Member said at the beginning of his supplementary question. Of course, my right hon. Friend dislikes keeping in prison girls or boys awaiting borstal, even though they are separate from the adult offenders. The remand centres are the answer to this problem and they are coming forward. The first for girls will, we hope, be ready in the early part of 1964, and there will be others ready later that year and 1965.

Miss Bacon: Following the hon. and learned Gentleman's Answer, is he aware that the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. which was passed 15 years ago, envisaged


remand centres but that only one has so far been opened? When is the one at Risley, in Lancashire, which has been on the cards for so long, to be opened? Secondly, can the hon. and learned Gentleman say when the girls will be moved from the borstals which are attached to prisons and when the new borstal in the north of England will be opened?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: In reply to the first part of that question, the three remand centres concerned—Risley, Hewell Grange and Pucklechurch—will be opening in 1964. As to borstals for girls, this girl is at Bulwood, in Essex, which is one of the newest and best. All that can be done for her is being done. Of course, we need more of these institutions. I could not give an off-the-cuff answer to the third part of the hon. Lady's question, but the new borstals are coming forward much more rapidly than seemed to be the case last year.

Commonwealth Citizens

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what documents it is necessary for Commonwealth citizens to obtain from his Department before entering the United Kingdom for a visit.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): There is no obligation on a Commonwealth citizen who is a bona fide business or holiday visitor to obtain any document at all from my Department, or from a British post overseas, before coming here. To make certain in advance that he will not experience difficulty at the port of arrival an intending Commonwealth visitor can, if he so desires, obtain an entry certificate from a British post overseas, but there is no requirement upon him to do so.

Mr. Ridley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that in the Commonwealth—and especially in Australia—there is a widespread belief that it is necessary to obtain a permit before even visiting the United Kingdom? Will he ask his information officers in the Commonwealth to give the maximum publicity to the Answer that he has just given?

Mr. Brooke: Yes. I am aware that when the Commonwealth Immigrants

Act first came into force there was some misconception on these lines in Australia. My information is that it has now been removed. I hope that my hon. Friend's Question will do anything further that is necessary completely to eradicate it.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has given to shipping lines as to the precise nature of the documents which Commonwealth citizens should possess before coming to the United Kingdom for a visit.

Mr. Brooke: Shortly before Part I of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act came into operation, a meeting was held between representatives of shipping companies and officers of the Home Office and of other interested Departments; and members of the Immigration Service are in frequent contact with the companies' representatives at the ports. I have no reason to suppose that the companies are not aware of the position as described in the Answer I have today given to Question No. 2.

Mr. Ridley: Again, I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware, however, that quite recently, at any rate, shipping lines were refusing to allow passages to be booked by persons who did not hold entry permits into the United Kingdom? Will he tackle this problem in order to make sure that this sort of thing is not done, because it damages the reputation of our very liberal immigration and visiting laws?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend may be aware of the leaflet entitled "Admission of Commonwealth Citizens to the United Kingdom", which explains how welcome are people who are coming here on holiday or for business reasons. I know that some shipping companies were at one time inclined to take the line that an entry certificate was essential. I do not believe that any airline sought to impress that false idea on their passengers, and I hope that the shipping lines have by now given up doing so.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is there any definition of the length of visit? Can it be three months, or six months?

Mr. Brooke: The essential point is that the person shall be coming here on holiday, for a business visit or as a student. If the person concerned has any


fear that questions may be raised about his entry he can, as I have explained, obtain an entry certificate beforehand.

Crimes of Violence

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the nationalities of persons charged with crimes of violence in the United Kingdom in the year 1961.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: My right hon. Friend regrets that this information is not available.

Mr. Shepherd: Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether we shall be able to discover from the figures of deportations the nationalities of those deported for crimes of violence?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The statistics will give, in the round, only the countries to which the deportees go, and they are not necessarily nationals of those countries. But the details provide a pretty good idea of the countries of origin, and I have no doubt that various conclusions can be drawn from them.

Dartmoor Prison (Escapes)

Sir H. Studholme: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the cost arising from escapes from Dartmoor Prison over the last ten years; and how much of this cost has fallen upon Devon County Council.

Mr. Brooke: I regret that the information which my hon. Friend desires is not available, but I am informed that a rough estimate shows that additional police expenditure attributable to this cause may have amounted to between £4,000 and £5,000 a year in recent years.

Sir H. Studholme: Will my right hon. Friend consider relieving the county of any additional expense on this count in view of the fact that prisoners are drawn from all over England and when they are out in working parties they have a greater opportunity to escape than is the case with most other prisons?

Mr. Brooke: I relieve the county of 50 per cent. of the cost, because that is covered by the Exchequer grant. Some counties have more prisons and borstals than does Devonshire—although I agree that escapes from Dartmoor often receive greater publicity. I do not think that it

would be possible to reach any financial accommodation on these lines. All I can say is that the number of escapes from Dartmoor in 1962 was only half the 1961 number—although I do not claim any personal credit for that.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not Devonshire County Council gain from the fact that there is an influx of tourists to see this place?

Betting, Gaming and Licensing

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will advise the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the social consequences of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960 and the Licensing Act, 1961.

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir.

Mr. Thomas: Am I to understand from that reply that the Minister is satisfied with the consequences of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960? Does not he share the growing concern about the fantastic growth of casinos in our cities and the widespread increase in almost every other form of gambling? Is he aware of its effect on our home life and on the industrial activity of a great many people? Will he at least set up a Departmental committee to advise him upon the effects of the present widespread gambling increase?

Mr. Brooke: I am never satisfied, but I do not need a Departmental committee to advise me about these matters. It is my business to inform myself fully on them. I put it to the hon. Member that both the Betting and Gaming Act and the Licensing Act have been in force for a comparatively short time. It would be wise for Parliament to take a rather longer view before deciding to amend either of them.

Sir J. Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend realise that those who showed much interest in the Betting and Gaming Bill when it was going through Parliament are not satisfied with the results? I agree that the time has not yet arrived for a thorough-going review, but will my right hon. Friend watch the position very carefully?

Mr. Brooke: Yes. I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. These are extremely important matters.

Mr. Fletcher: That answer is not good enough. Is the Minister aware that there is growing concern about the undue amount of money being spent on betting and gaming? Bearing in mind the fact that when this Act was passed it was never contemplated that the present large number of betting shops would come into existence all over the country, will the right hon. Gentleman consider it his duty to look into the question now?

Mr. Brooke: It is too early to talk in terms of amendment. In fact, the number of betting offices is no greater than was foreseen when the Bill was passed. Furthermore, illegal street betting has virtually ceased. I agree with the hon. Member that social and economic questions are involved.

Mr. Thomas: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Victoria Law Courts, Birmingham

Mr. Cleaver: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to alleviate the overcrowding and unsatisfactory conditions at the Victoria Law Courts, Birmingham.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The provision of court accommodation in Birmingham is primarily for the Birmingham City Council. My right hon. Friend hopes that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1962, dealing with the arrangement of assize and quarter sessions business will bring some relief to the problems of congestion.

Mr. Cleaver: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that assize courts, quarter sessions and magistrates' courts are often all held on the same day, with the result that there is almost chaos in the courts? Is he further aware that there is no accommodation for juries-in-waiting or for probation interviews?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The accommodation is certainly bad, but it was part of the object of the 1962 Act to spread this work over the year by means of

new assize arrangements and thus avoid the sort of clash that my hon. Friend has in mind. I must reiterate that for new courts proposals must come from the city council itself in the first instance.

Juvenile Offences

Dr. Bray: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the number of cases brought before juvenile courts has increased, relative to the level elsewhere in the country, in areas of high and rising juvenile unemployment.

Mr. Brooke: The increase in juvenile unemployment is quite recent, and so I regret that statistics of court cases on which to base a comparison are not yet available.

Dr. Bray: Is the Home Secretary aware that those of us who represent constituencies with high and rising levels of unemployment are very much aware of the social problems created and, in particular, the one referred to in the Question? We feel that the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour are not sufficiently appreciative of the social consequences. Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department take steps to bring this fact to the attention of those Ministries?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member has raised an important question of juvenile delinquency. The steps taken by the Prime Minister to appoint Lord Hail-sham with special responsibility for this area prove that the Government are thoroughly alive to all aspects of the problem. But I can assure the hon. Member that I intend to keep the closest watch on any correlation between juvenile delinquency and unemployment.

Sodium Chlorate

Mr. Loveys: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to ensure that sodium chlorate is sold in such a form as to make it less effective as an explosive compound.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): My right hon. Friend appreciates the seriousness of the problem to which my hon. Friend refers, and he is taking


action in a number of ways to reduce the possibilities of the misuse of this substance.

Mr. Loveys: While appreciating the substance of that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend whether, in view of the alarming number of accidents which are occurring through the misuse of this compound, it could be mixed with a liquified substance which would not impair its use as a weed killer but which would make it less effective as an explosive?

Mr. Woodhouse: That possibility has been examined and tests have been conducted on behalf of the Home Office Explosives Branch, but they have shown that if would still be quite easy for anyone to dry it out and use it for explosive purposes unless the solution were so diluted as to make it virtually useless as a weed killer. Nevertheless, we are taking steps through manufacturers, distributors and retailers to make sure that the dangers are widely known.

Police Recruitment (Height Standards)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) to what extent recruitment for the police has been affected by the minimum height requirements for recruits; and

(2) whether he will lower the minimum height requirements for recruits to the Metropolitan Police.

Mr. Woodhouse: The minimum height standards undoubtedly mean that some otherwise suitable applicants cannot be accepted as police recruits, but my right hon. Friend does not think that it would be in the public interest to lower the minimum height of 5 ft. 8 ins. prescribed by the Police Regulations.

Mr. Goodhart: Is my hon. Friend aware that the average height of adult men in this country has recently been estimated at 5 ft. 7· ins., which is below the minimum height requirements? Is he aware that if the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) had applied to join the police they would have been rejected by all the police forces in this country and those forces would have lost possibly valuable recruits?

Mr. Woodhouse: I am aware of the statistic to which my hon. Friend has referred, but I think this illustrates the point that it is generally desirable and accepted by public opinion that a policeman should be in a position physically to rise above surrounding humanity. As to the point made about right hon. Members of the Opposition Front Bench, I suppose that it is at any rate to the advantage of this House.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Does my hon. Friend realise that in the finest police force in the country, the Nottingham City Police, we maintain a minimum height standard of 6 ft., and we are fully up to strength and have a waiting list?

Mr. Woodhouse: I am aware that a number of police forces insist on a minimum standard higher than the minimum laid down by the Police Regulations. There is no reason why they should not, if they can fill their forces.

Nuclear Warfare (Civil Defence)

Miss Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a householders' guide concerning action to be taken in the event of a nuclear attack has been prepared; and when it will be distributed.

Mr. Brooke: Copies of a handbook summarising the advice to be given to householders, if this should at any time become necessary, were made available on 15th January to local authorities for issue as a training publication to members of the civil defence, police and fire services. There is no present action which householders are being asked to take. The handbook will be kept up to date. Like other civil defence training publications, it is on sale to the public.

Miss Vickers: Does not my right hon. Friend think it desirable to allow householders to have this advice? In an Adjournment debate on the subject, I pointed out that Canada and other Commonwealth countries do this and consider it very helpful and necessary to get people prepared in case an emergency occurs.

Mr. Brooke: Any householder can have a copy—the price is only 9d.—but I do not think this is the time for householders to start white-washing


their windows and doing the other things they might have to do in a real emergency.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the Home Secretary consider that training should be given to the public in bricking up windows and filling book-cases with earth during the space of four minutes, as is recommended in the booklet?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir.

Domestic Employment Agencies

Miss Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce in the near future legislation for the compulsory licensing of domestic employment agencies.

Mr. Woodhouse: Legislation is already in force in some local authority areas requiring the compulsory registration of female domestic employment agencies, and in other areas local Acts provide for the licensing of all employment agencies. My right hon. Friend cannot at present give any undertaking about general legislation on the subject.

Miss Vickers: Does not my hon. Friend think it necessary to get on with this legislation in view of the enormous number of girls coming to this country, particularly from Europe, who go to rather undesirable domestic agencies and who do not get the best appointments when they arrive? It would also enable us to sign the appropriate United Nations Convention.

Mr. Woodhouse: I am not aware that there is any general urgency throughout the country on this problem, but if there is in any local authority area, it is open to the local authority to bring in its own legislation.

Miss Bacon: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very necessary to have these employment agencies licensed? Since it is the responsibility of the Home Office, would it not be very much better if that were compulsory rather than being left to local authorities? Will he look at the matter again, particularly as the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) pointed out that it is not only girls in this country but strangers coming to our shores who are involved?

Mr. Woodhouse: I am aware of the points the hon. Lady has made. We certainly will give them our attention, but I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend's predecessor said on the subject, that it is mainly a question of Parliamentary time.

Drunkenness

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last year a person charged with being drunk and incapable was subsequently found to be ill.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis does not keep separate records of the occasions on which a person charged with being drunk and incapable is subsequently found to be ill, nor does my right hon. Friend receive this information from other police forces. I regret, therefore, that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of a recent case where a person arrested on a charge of being drunk and disorderly subsequently died in his cell? In view of the gravity of this occurrence, does he not consider that the regulations prescribing medical examination of an accused person should be thoroughly tightened up?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am not aware of that case. If the hon. Member will send me particulars, I shall certainly look into it. The Commissioner assures my right hon. Friend that the number of cases in which someone is accused of being drunk and incapable and it subsequently turns out that the condition is due to illness is very small indeed. Whenever there is reason to suspect that any person arrested for being drunk is ill, a doctor is called as a matter of practice.

Betting Shops

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce legislation to allow local justices to order the closing of betting shops during the hours of racing.

Mr. Brooke: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a


Question by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) on 20th December.

Mr. Chapman: If, as is alleged, there is in some localities a considerable nuisance from too many people hanging about in betting shops during racing hours, a nuisance from too many people being tempted to bet from race to race, and a nuisance because in some localities race courses find that people prefer to go to the shops instead of to the race courses, would it not be a good thing to allow justices a local option to make up their minds on the question of prohibited opening in the way suggested in this Question?

Mr. Brooke: It is not a question for the justices but for the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary so far has been acting in general on the views expressed when the Bill was going through Parliament. It was then held that betting offices ought to be open during racing hours so that people who had no other opportunity could place their bets. It was felt that if they were not open to them it would give rise to illegal betting, which is what the Act was designed to stop. But I have an open mind on this, and I am quite prepared to consider the matter further.

Prisons (Cotton Textiles)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent imported cotton textiles are being purchased for use in Her Majesty's prisons; whether the cotton blankets and sheets so purchased are made from imported cloth; and whether this cloth conforms to the specification laid down for cloths of United Kingdom manufacture.

Mr. Brooke: No cotton blankets or sheets are purchased for use in Her Majesty's prisons. About £100,000 was spent in 1962 on cotton goods for prison establishments in England and Wales; about £30,000 of this was spent on imported goods, £20,000 being on yarn and £10,000 on blue drill cloth for overalls.

Mrs. Castle: Do not those figures, which show that the Prison Commissioners are purchasing about a third of their requirements in the form of imported cloth and yarn, represent a very

shocking state of affairs in view of the difficulties at present being experienced by Lancashire? Could the right hon. Gentleman say what steps the Prison Commissioners take to ascertain that the goods they purchase from firms in this country are in fact of United Kingdom manufacture? Will he instruct them to buy their goods from Lancashire?

Mr. Brooke: The Prison Commissioners have to do what other Government Departments do and have always done, whatever Government have been in power, which is to accept the lowest tender provided that the goods are up to specification. I might be in trouble with the Public Accounts Committee if I gave contrary instructions. These contracts are open to any British manufacturer and it will please me greatly if British manufacturers are more successful with their tenders in future.

Prisons (Hostel System)

Mr. Fitch: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many of Her Majesty's prisons in England and Wales the hostel system is operating; and if he will make a statement on this system.

Mr. Brooke: Thirteen, including two for women.
Two new hostels were opened last yew and it is hoped to open two more this year. I attach great importance to the scheme, and its results continue to be encouraging, though naturally some prisoners in whom this trust is placed fail to justify it. Research is in progress into the value of the scheme for different types of prisoners.

Mr. Fitch: Can the Home Secretary say what percentage of men and women who have taken part in this scheme have been convicted again after their release?

Mr. Brooke: I am not sure that I can do the mathematics quickly enough, but of 335 men discharged from hostels up to the end of 1961, on completion of long sentences, 290 had not been reconvicted a year later.

Electoral Registers

Mr. Whitlock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give directions to electoral registration officers that no alterations be made


to electoral registers after they have been published.

Mr. Woodhouse: My right hon. Friend is not aware of the need for such action, but he will be glad to consider any case which the hon. Gentleman may wish to bring to his notice.

Mr. Whitlock: Is not the hon. Gentle man aware that during the South Northants by-election names were added to the register in the course of the by-election campaign? I do not suggest for a moment that this was done with anything but the best of intentions, but was it not quite illegal? Should not the hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the law is uniformly enforced, so that there may be public confidence in the register?

Mr. Woodhouse: I have heard of that case and, like the hon. Member, I have no doubt that the registration officer was acting in good faith. However, I am advised that it is a question of law whether he was entitled to do what he did, and it is for the courts to settle that point of law. My right hon. Friend has no authority to issue such a direction as the hon. Gentleman presupposes.

Miss Bacon: Will not the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiry to see what did happen?

Mr. Woodhouse: We know exactly what happened. The question of whether it is lawful is for the courts.

Fireworks

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in view of the 2,796 accidents needing hospital treatment caused by fireworks in the period 15th October to 10th November, 1962, what consultations he has had with the British Firework Manufacturers' Safety Association to decrease the dangers from fireworks during 1963; and what action he contemplates.

Mr. Brooke: The analysis of injuries caused by fireworks during this period which were treated at hospitals has just been completed, and I am circulating the results in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am sending copies of these figures to the British Fireworks Manufacturers' Safety Association and inviting them to discuss them with my Department.

Mr. Boyden: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what pattern of accidents is revealed by a study of the figures and whether the firework manufacturers can do something to remedy this pattern of accidents?

Mr. Brooke: I think the hon. Member will see that the figures are set out in considerable detail. Fortunately, out of 2,800 accidents, 1,800 were only minor injuries.

Mr. Loveys: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that many of these accidents are caused by home-made fireworks and not by those made by members of the British Firework Manufacturers' Safety Association, and by the misuse of sodium chlorate?

Mr. Brooke: This is just the sort of matter which the association may wish to discuss with us at the discussions to which I have invited it.

FIREWORKS INJURIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES, 1962


The figures given below analyse in various ways information obtained from hospitals in England and Wales relating to the 2,832 persons who received hospital treatment for injuries caused by fireworks between 15th October and 12th November, 1962.


A. Place where injury occurred



(i) Family or private party
1,200


(ii) Public or semi-public party in park or open space e.g. sports club
531


(iii) Casual incident in street
816


(iv) Other places
161


(v) Unknown
124

B. Type of firework involved


(i) Squib or cheap banger
1,105


(ii) More expensive banger
131


(iii) Rocket
266


(iv) Jumping cracker or "fly-about" type
270


(v) Display firework (e.g. roman candle)
483


(vi) Other than above (including home made firework)
206


(vii) Unknown
371

C. Circumstances leading to injury


(i) Ignition in pocket
157


(ii) Accidental ignition in box or container
115


(iii) Examining firework after faulty or delayed ignition
371


(iv) Holding firework in hand
570


(V) Deliberate misuse
645


(vi) Other causes
637


(vii) Unknown
337

D. Age groups of persons injured


(i) Over 21
418


(ii) 16–20
264


(iii) 13–15
664


(iv) Under 13
1,486

E. Nature of injury


(i) Eye
1,038


(ii) Face
642


(iii) Hand
978


(iv) Other parts of body
687

(These figures total more than 2,832 because some victims received injuries in two or more of the categories.)

F. Severity of injury


(i) Died
0


(ii) Admitted to hospital
483


(iii) Not admitted to hospital but injury severe
505


(iv) Minor injury
1,828


(v) Unknown
16

Rodenticides

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what limitations he is proposing under the Animal (Cruel Poisons) Act, 1962, on the use of rodenticides.

Mr. Woodhouse: My right hon. Friend is consulting with representatives of those interested in this question about the scope of the regulations to be made.

Mr. Boyden: Would the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no regular poison which is used against rats and mice will be prohibited until there is an effective alternative?

Mr. Woodhouse: My right hon. Friend cannot give an assurance until he has finished consulting all the interests which have made representations to him on this subject.

Mr. Fletcher: Surely we are not to have ridiculous sentiment about rats, or are we? Cannot the Home Secretary give us a definite assurance that local authorities, which in London or elsewhere are carrying on a continous fight against the menace to health which rats cause, will not find that he will prohibit the use of poisons like red squill or other effective rodenticides?

Mr. Woodhouse: My right hon. Friend will not place any handicaps before a campaign against rats, but I cannot give such an assurance as the hon. Member seeks before we have received and considered all the representations being made.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the poison which is particularly important in keeping pests down is Warfarin? Is he aware that it would be a bad thing not also

to bear in mind that there are some poisons which definitely deserve to be removed from the authorised list?

Mr. Woodhouse: My right hon. Friend will bear both those points in mind.

Christopher Craig

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has decided to release Christopher Craig next May.

Mr. Brooke: Craig's case, in common with those of all persons detained during Her Majesty's Pleasure, or serving sentences of life imprisonment, has been kept under review. After careful consideration of all the circumstances, I reached the decision that it would be right to release him on licence next May. He will then have been detained for 10· years. His release will be subject to his continued good conduct in prison meanwhile, and to satisfactory arrangements being made for his resettlement.

Mr. Lipton: Would the Home Secretary be good enough to explain what principle he follows in deciding to commute life sentences? For example, why has he decided to release Christopher Craig and Frederick Emmett-Dunne, both of whom were involved in murder charges, in the very near future, whereas, on the other hand, he is keeping in prison Joseph Doyle who was also sentenced to life imprisonment for implication in a raid on a military unit in Berkshire, and who is being kept in prison for a life sentence, despite representations which the right hon. Gentleman has received from a deputation of members of the Irish Parliament in Dublin?

Mr. Brooke: I will certainly keep Doyle's case under review, too. His crime was committed some two years later than Craig's. What I take into account are the circumstances of the offence, the age and character of the offender, his development in detention, and the need to protect the public from any prisoner who may become a danger if released.

Drug Addicts

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the latest figures are of drug addicts known to the authorities.

Mr. Woodhouse: There are 456 known addicts to drugs controlled under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951.

Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is reason to believe that the number of drug addicts has been gravely under-estimated by his Department, that stimulants and sedatives are far too loosely controlled and that all kinds of people are developing drug addiction as a result? Has not the time come for a much more accurate inquiry into the present state of affairs with a view to much more definite action being taken by the Home Office?

Mr. Woodhouse: I am aware of statements which from time to time are made in the Press and elsewhere and which suggest that the number has been gravely under-estimated. Our experience is that whenever such statements are published and we seek to trace the evidence on which they are based, we make very little progress in adding to the evidence already in our possession. Any evidence which we can obtain from any quarter or which may come to us from the Press or elsewhere will be carefully examined. We are very acutely aware of the gravity of the problem.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he visits a hostel in my constituency, he will be able to get much of the evidence which will substantiate what the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has just said. I hope that he will pay a visit to the hostel and listen to what people in charge of it have to say, for he will find it quite shattering.

Mr. Woodhouse: That is precisely the kind of evidence which we would like to have made available to us.

London Taxi Service

Mr. Speir: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for improving London's taxi service.

Mr. Woodhouse: I am glad to say that there has been a steady increase in recent years in the numbers of both licensed cabs and drivers. Prospective drivers are coming forward in increasing numbers and the procedure for testing them has been simplified and accelerated. My right hon. Friend has invited repre-

sentatives of the trade to consider certain suggestions for further improving the service.

Mr. Speir: But does not that Answer mean that the London public have to go on enduring a totally inadequate taxi service for years to come? Is it not absurd that, although there is a much greater demand today for taxis, the position is that there are still 1,500 fewer than there were before the war, and is not this due largely to the fact that the rules and regulations were laid down in the days of the hansom cab and are completely inadequate to deal with modern conditions?

Mr. Woodhouse: I do not think that that is entirely true. The question of meeting the public demand is, of course, a question for the trade itself. The responsibility of the Home Office is concerned with fares, with the construction of cabs, and with the character and competence of the drivers. We have no wish to place any limit on the number of either cabs or drivers other than insuring that those controls are met.

Mr. Speir: As I am not satisfied with that answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Domestic Paraffin Heaters

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fires caused by paraffin heaters were reported to the fire services in 1960, 1961, and 1962, respectively; and how many deaths resulted therefrom.

Mr. Woodhouse: In 1960 2,988 fires caused by paraffin heaters were reported to fire brigades in England and Wales, and in 1961 3,004. The statistics do not show how many deaths were caused by these fires, but it seems from sampling that there were rather fewer than 30 in each year. I regret that figures are not yet available for 1962.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Does my hon. Friend know that in Nottingham, where these heaters are very much used by Commonwealth immigrants, we have averaged one fire a fortnight during the past two years, and will he perhaps encourage some other local authorities


to follow the example of the Nottingham Home Safety Council and Fire Brigade Committee which have launched a widespread campaign to instruct people in the proper use of these heaters?

Mr. Woodhouse: I was not aware of the statistics for Nottingham, and I am very glad to learn of the example it has set, but I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that since the middle of last year regulations have been in force which require oil heaters to conform to certain specifications laid down by the British Standards Institution; but it is really too early yet to know what result that will have had on the statistics.

Fires

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the recent increase in fires to domestic premises, and the loss of life involved; and whether he will make a statement as to the chief causes of these incidents.

Mr. Brooke: Between 1958 and 1961, which is the last year for which figures are available, the number of fires attended by fire brigades in dwellings in England and Wales rose from 22,736 to 28,532, an increase of approximately 25 per cent. The number of deaths was 579 in 1958 and 564 in 1961. The fires were caused chiefly by electricity, oil appliances, smoking materials, chimney fires spreading beyond the chimney, and gas appliances, in that order of relative importance.

Mr. Hynd: In view of the information which the right hon. Gentleman has given in regard to the part played by oil heaters, is he satisfied that the present standards provide adequate protection?

Mr. Brooke: I think that this is very largely a matter of publicity, and the Committee of the Central Fire Brigade Advisory Council is at this moment considering means of improving fire prevention publicity.

Miss Bacon: Under the general heading of fires caused by electricity, can the right hon. Gentleman say how many were caused by electric blankets?

Mr. Brooke: Not without notice.

Experiments on Living Animals

Mr. Burden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what animals have been used in experiments involving the forced inhalation of tobacco smoke; and what means are employed to make them inhale the smoke.

Mr. Woodhouse: Animals which have been used in experiments involving the inhalation of tobacco smoke include rabbits, rats, mice, guinea-pigs, desert-rats, pigeons and hens. Some experiments involve the introduction of tobacco smoke into the animal's mouth or, in the case of hens, into the air sac. In other cases, animals have been kept in an atmosphere containing a high tobacco smoke content.

Mr. Burden: But would not my hon. Friend agree that the animals used in these experiments must suffer agonies of fear and pain? Would not he also agree that in America, where the experiments have been discontinued, and in this country, not one animal has been induced to contract lung cancer? As human beings willingly and voluntarily smoke, despite medical warnings, what are the reasons for inflicting these diabolical experiments on animals purely to try to prove that they can be induced to contract lung cancer?

Mr. Woodhouse: On the advice that we have received in the Home Office, I do not think it is true to say that the animals involved in these experiments suffer agonies. I am told that it causes them no more discomfort to inhale tobacco smoke than it causes human beings.
As to the value of the experiments, I would remind my hon. Friend of the scope of my right hon. Friend's responsibilities, which do not include adjudicating upon the usefulness of a particular piece of research, or assessing the results of scientific work.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Prime Minister if he will order the preparation of a co-ordinated programme for the development and application by Her Majesty's Government of nuclear energy for power generation and marine propulsion.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The Atomic Energy Authority is responsible for both these programmes, acting in conjunction with the respective industries. This ensures full technical co-ordination. Interdepartmental co-ordination is the responsibility of my noble Friend the Minister for Science.

Mr. Digby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an apparent lack of balance, as we are spending £500 million on uneconomic nuclear power stations and we are not ordering a nuclear merchant ship on the ground that it is uneconomic, and, indeed, we are spending only £3 million in three years on research into marine propulsion?

The Prime Minister: I think that the research is going well, and what we are trying to do is to find a reactor which has a reasonable prospect of achieving economic superiority over conventional systems.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONOURS LIST

Mr. Mason: asked the Prime Minister what procedure is followed by Departments in submitting names for the Honours List; and if he will move to appoint a joint committee to review the present departmental procedure with the object of widening its scope.

The Prime Minister: Names are sent by Ministers to my office. As the departmental procedure is always under review, I do not consider that a committee of the kind suggested by the hon. Member is called for.

Mr. Mason: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the present system is regarded as farcical? There is far too much mystique about it all. What is known is that far too many people receive honours automatically just for doing their job and nothing else noteworthy, and that far too few people who are doing a lot of public work on a voluntary basis rarely get recognised at all. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up a permanent honours and merits council so that applications can be made, so that they can be investigated, and so that they can be seen to be justified?

Mr. Speaker: Order I think the hon. Member understands the principle. It is

all right to ask about the departmental lists, but we cannot go further into the realm he was then suggesting.

Mr. Mason: But as the Prime Minister has said that the present system is always under review, it is not in order for me to put a question suggesting how it can be bettered?

Mr. Speaker: No. I understand that the system to which the Prime Minister was referring was the system referred to in the Question, namely, that limited to departmental recommendations.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to clear up a point for me, and perhaps for other hon. Members? Can he define what is meant by "rewards for political services"?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience, has full knowledge of that.

Mr. Mason: In view of the absence of information and the unsatisfactory reply that I have received, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE AND MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Dr. Bray: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that delays in reaching decisions by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour are handicapping the recovery of areas of high unemployment; and if he will consider means of achieving closer co-ordination of their work.

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any such delays. On the contrary, I am satisfied that the existing arrangements are working well.

Dr. Bray: Is the Prime Minister aware that these two Ministers are perhaps not the happiest survivors of the July purge, and that any responsibility given to Lord Hailsham can only add to the delays which have taken place—for instance, Ministry of Labour, six months to approve a grant of £3,000; Board of Trade, a year to catch up with the forecast of labour demands of particular industries.

The Prime Minister: The arrangements are working well and I think that my noble Friend's appointment has been generally well received.

Mr. Hamilton: Has the right hon. Gentleman ascertained whether the relevent Department has compared the practice in this country with the practice in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that in a letter to me not so long ago the President of the Board of Trade admitted that procedures in Northern Ireland are much more expeditious than in this country?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot be expected to know about the private correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and the President of the Board of Trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS, SCOTLAND (BRANCH LINE CLOSURES)

Mr. John MacLeod: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland in Sutherland on Saturday, 25th August, 1962, stating that no railway line in Scotland would be closed unless there was adequate alternative provision for passenger and freight transport, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was repeating the assurance he gave to the House on 19th July last year that where a railway closure is the right course in the long run, the Government will ensure that it is not carried out in such a way as to leave an area bereft of adequate facilities for transport of passengers or freight.

Mr. MacLeod: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. Will he announce that it is Government policy to retain the main lines to the North, to Inverness, the Kyle of Lochalsh and to Wick and Thurso, because there is no adequate alternative transport discernible for that area in the foreseeable future, and uncertainty about the closure of the railway lines is hampering any potential development and growth in that grossly under-developed area?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend's premise is right, his conclusion is right.

Mr. J. Hynd: Can the Prime Minister add to that information by telling us how the Government will ensure that any alternative road services will be made permanent if the railways are closed down'?

The Prime Minister: I think that these matters had better be dealt with when we have the main discussion on the railway programme when it is fully available.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH-EAST COAST

Mr. W. T. Rodgers: asked the Prime Minister to what extent the Lord President of the Council is able to make recommendations and exercise powers in relation to the overall national problems of economic growth, industrial development and population as they affect the present situation in the North-East.

The Prime Minister: The terms of my noble Friend's assignment are wide enough to allow him to make such recommendations on these wider questions as he judges would be helpful in dealing with the special problems of the North-East Coast.

Mr. Rodgers: May we take it, then, that the Prime Minister agrees that success in dealing, for example, with the problem of establishing new industry in the North-East is dependent on the overall efficient planning of the location of industry? If that is so, why is it that the Prime Minister has greater faith in the capacity of the Lord President to deal with this situation now, and in isolation, than in the capacity of the President of the Board of Trade to deal with it over a period on a national basis?

The Prime Minister: I think that this has been explained when we have discussed, by Question and Answer, what were the terms of reference and the purpose of the appointment of my noble Friend. As has been said, there is in Northern Ireland a Government who are charged with this duty, and in Scotland there is the whole of the Government machinery. I felt that it would be a good thing if the problems of the North-East—what I might call the three rivers and the hinterland—were looked at as a whole, and I think that my noble Friend


will be able to do a good job, both locally and at Whitehall, in trying to find the right solution.

Mr. Jay: If and when the Lord President makes some recommendations, will they be carried out by him or, if not, by whom?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has some experience of Governmental machinery. If my noble Friend makes recommendations and they are accepted by the Government, it will be the duty of the Minister in charge of the particular matter to make the necessary arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS TRADE (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the need to plan and co-ordinate Great Britain's external trading relations following the breakdown of the Common Market negotiations, he will now appoint a senior Minister with special responsibilities for overseas trade.

The Prime Minister: Responsibility for overseas trade rests with the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that today our external economic relations are nearly as important as our external political relations and that the President of the Board of Trade has far too much to do to allow him to deal with our internal economic affairs, and that the Foreign Office is not equipped to deal with these matters? Will not he give a senior Minister his own Department to deal with them?

The Prime Minister: I think that experience has shown that what we now have is the best procedure. At one time we did have a Department of Overseas Trade which was subordinate to the President, or which worked under him. After considerable experience of that it was decided to put the full responsibility on the President, and, on the whole, I think that the best system.

Sir C. Osborne: Since there is a danger that we may lose a considerable amount of trade in Europe as a result of the breakdown of the talks in Brussels,

will my right hon. Friend assure the House that every step will be taken to increase East-West trade as a kind of compensation?

The Prime Minister: Whether the Brussels negotiations succeeded or not, it is our purpose to extend trade wherever possible and by whatever possible means.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Prime Minister check again on what he has said about the former Department of Overseas Trade, because I do not think that it was quite right—although that is not the important point? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the First Secretary of State is still in charge of the co-ordination of Government policy, as he was supposed to be during the Brussels negotiations? Is he still in charge of all the Government decisions following the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations?

The Prime Minister: I am speaking from memory, and though I may have made a mistake about the precise relation, I do remember that there was a period when we had a Department of Overseas Trade under a Minister but not a Minister of Cabinet rank—under the Foreign Office, or jointly responsible to the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade; but not of Cabinet rank. We changed that and put it with the Board of Trade. I think that, on the whole, it is a better system, although it is a matter for argument. There was a change in 1946, and the right hon. Gentleman is an expert on these affairs. On the second point, there was a Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend for the conduct of the negotiations in Brussels. Now we have to consider how we shall organise our affairs to deal with future problems. But I should not like to say anything precise about those. No doubt it will be raised in the debate next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADA

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister to what extent during his recent conversations with the Prime Minister of Canada he discussed the question of the role of Canada in the policy of the nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister to what extent in his talks with Mr. Diefenbaker he discussed the part to be played by Canada within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the effect on the Organisation's arrangements of the proposals made by the American Government for siting nuclear weapons and nuclear bases in Canada.

The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to the joint communiqué issued after my talks with Mr. Diefenbaker and subsequently published as a White Paper.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Prime Minister say to what extent the Prime Minister of Canada approved the Polaris arrangement and whether the right hon. Gentleman suggested to him that Canada should pay some of the cost?

The Prime Minister: Those are matters—I should not wish to go outside the communiqué—for the Canadian Government.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentle. man aware that The Times has revealed that during the Cuban crisis President Kennedy asked Mr. Diefenbaker to accept American nuclear bases in Canada? As this must have come before the N.A.T.O. Council, will the Prime Minister say whether he knew of President Kennedy's request or Mr. Diefenbaker's refusal?

The Prime Minister: I am not responsible for the alleged revelations of The Times newspaper.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLARIS SUBMARINES

Mr. Wigg: asked the Prime Minister in concerting defence plans with the United States President at Nassau, what information he was given as to the number of Polaris submarines in service at the present time.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman very courteously sent me a message to say that his Question referred to my statement in the defence debate on 30th January that the Americans already have about twenty Polaris submarines in service. I find on further inquiry that the latest figures are as follows: nine submarines are deployed, one has been commissioned but not yet deployed, seven

more have been launched, twelve more keels have been laid, six more construction contracts have been let and long lead items for six more have been authorised.
I regret it if I inadvertently misled the House in the figure which I gave.

Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is not it rather odd that he got it wrong, for the United States Embassy had published a statement on 3rd January that the "Thomas E. Jefferson" was the tenth to be commissioned and the margin of error in this case is 100 per cent.? Yesterday we had an admission—[Hors. MEMBERS: "Question"]. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday we had an admission from the Secretary of State for War that the Prime Minister's statement on atomic tactical weapons was also completely wrong? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a look at the sources of information on which he relied when speaking in the defence debate?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who, as I say, very courteously gave me the information that he wished to raise this point. One tries to have everything checked in the long and rather elaborate speeches which I have to make, and I must frankly say that this figure, which perhaps I gave from memory, was not sufficiently checked. The actual figure is as I have given. There are altogether nine deployed and one commissioned—that is ten; seven have been launched and will be commissioned—that is seventeen; there are twelve more laid—that comes to twenty-nine; there are six more under contracts let and there are long lead items for six more. I think that what I was giving was a general picture that it was a very large programme.

Mr. Wigg: However the right hon. Gentleman seeks to disguise it, he told the House that there are twenty Polaris submarines when in fact there are only ten. His sources of information are so bad that perhaps he would seek my help in future.

The Prime Minister: Since the hon. Gentleman is always so courteous, I will in future submit my speeches to him for correction.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICA (FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE'S VISIT)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. WALL: To ask the First Secretary of State when he intends to call a conference of the five Governments concerned to review the constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in accordance with Article 99 of the Constitution.

Mr. HEALEY: To ask the First Secretary of State if he will make a statement on his recent official visit to Central Africa.

Mr. WALL: To ask the First Secretary of State if he will make a statement on his visit to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

Mr. BROCKWAY: To ask the First Secretary of State if he will make a statement on his official visit to the territories of the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland.

Sir S. MCADDEN: To ask the First Secretary of State whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to Central Africa.

Mr. RUSSELL: To ask the First Secretary of State if he will make a statement on his visit to Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 58 together.
In the course of my recent visit to Central Africa I entered into consultations with the Federal and Territorial Governments, with the general objective described to the House in my statement of 19th December last.
I was particularly glad to have this opportunity of hearing at first hand the views of the new Governments in Northern and Southern Rhodesia. Differing views were expressed to me on the form which future association of the territories might take, and the conditions under which such an association might be worked out. I was, however, encouraged to find a widespread disposi-

tion to think constructively on these problems.
It remains to find a basis upon which these varying points of view can be brought together and jointly considered, and I shall, for this purpose, be maintaining close touch with the Governments concerned.
I also discussed with the Federal Government and the Government of Nyasaland the detailed arrangements for giving effect to the decision that Nyasaland should be allowed to withdraw from the Federation. It has been agreed that these matters should be handled through a Working Party composed of representatives of the Federal and Nyasaland Governments under a United Kingdom chairman.
In Central Africa, we still have difficult and intricate problems. I have, however, sensed a movement of opinion which holds promise for the future. It must be our care to guide it towards the achievement of a solution which is acceptable so that it may last.

Mr. Wall: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of his visit? Does he agree that the future of Central Africa should now be settled as quickly as possible? Will he give consideration to calling a conference in Central Africa, under his chairmanship, of the five Governments concerned, to settle not only the future of the Federation, but of the three territories that at present make up the Federation?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. In my contact with the Governments concerned I found that they would prefer to prepare for a conference rather than to launch into a conference which might not be successful through lack of preparation. It is, therefore, my intention to take the first steps as soon as it is convenient.

Mr. Healey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the main obstacle to any association between the three territories is the existence in Southern Rhodesia of a Government who represent only 5 per cent. of the population and who are preparing to maintain themselves in power by hanging and flogging?
Does the First Secretary now acknowledge the desire of the people of Northern Rhodesia for independence, as


he acknowledged a similar desire of the Malawi people some months ago?
Finally, will the First Secretary tell the House, as he promised to before Christmas, whether he has now taken a decision on whether to publish the pledges made in 1953 by some of Her Majesty's Ministers regarding the way in which the Federation might be dissolved?

Mr. Butler: To answer the latter point first, this matter is still under consideration following upon the consultations I had with the Governments concerned.
With regard to Northern Rhodesia, I met the coalition Government of U.N.I.P. and A.N.C. and obtained their opinion on the subject of the future of the Federation and on the future of their own country, and undertook to bring that home for consideration.
With regard to Southern Rhodesia, I do not think that we should make the position more difficult, because I noticed a disposition on the part of the Northern Rhodesian Government to be ready to discuss at least economic links with the South, and I think that that is important.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the First Secretary whether, in the discussions, there was any consideration of the bigger constructive proposal of a future federation including both East and Central Africa, when the Governments of those territories become democratic and independent?

Mr. Butler: All these aspects were mentioned to me by the Ministers, whether African or European, when I was there, but I found no particular disposition to link up with East Africa.

Mr. Russell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still the Government's policy to encourage multi-racialism, at least in the two Rhodesias, and would it not be a good thing to announce this?

Mr. Butler: The more the races can live together—that is the object of the multi-racial approach—the happier everybody in Central Africa will be.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the First Secretary of State aware that pledges alleged to have been made by Her Majesty's Ministers privately in the discussions in 1953, but which were not revealed to Parliament

then, have been published by one Government, who have made charges against Her Majesty's Government in connection with these pledges? Does not the First Secretary believe that the House is entitled now to a full and frank statement on this matter very soon?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. As I said to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), this matter is under immediate consideration.

Sir G. Nicholson: My right hon. Friend, for very good reasons, has not been extremely enlightening. When will he be able to make clear the line of his thinking a little more lucidly?

Mr. Butler: Anyone who has visited Central Africa and realises the very varied and very often contradictory points of view put to him would not wish to rush in and spoil the possibility of a settlement when a constructive point of view about a future association is expressed in varying degress by all the Governments concerned. That is a distinct advance on anything we have met yet and I propose to take advantage of it.

Mr. Wade: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the setting up of a working party. Have all the parties concerned agreed to join such a working party, or indicated their willingness to do so?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The working party will consist, in the first place, of the Government of the Federation, the Government of Nyasaland, and the British Government, and all have consented to serve.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the First Secretary of State aware that the British taxpayer is not anxious to add to his burden? Will my right hon. Friend be able in due course to make a statement of exceptional lucidity about the economic future of Nyasaland and how that country is to be viable?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. That depends upon the work of the working party which is going into these matters.

Mr. Lipton: Is the First Secretary of State aware that, however difficult and intricate he says the problems of Central Africa are, they are nothing like as intricate and difficult as the right hon. Gentleman himself?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. G. Brown: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 11TH FEBRUARY—Debate on the Situation Arising from the Breakdown of the Brussels Negotiations.

TUESDAY, 12TH FEBRUARY—The remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill which will, if the House agrees, be taken formally to allow Monday's debate to be continued.

WEDNESDAY, 13TH FEBRUARY—London Government Bill (Clause 1 and Schedule 1): Committee (1st Allotted Day).

THURSDAY, 14TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Contracts of Employment Bill.

FRIDAY, 15TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

MONDAY, 18TH FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be: Motion on the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, until seven o'clock, when Private Members' Motions will be considered.

Afterwards, the Motion on the Prison Commissioners Dissolution Order.

Mr. G. Brown: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has noticed the Motion on the Order Paper, standing in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends? If so, are we to take it that the debate on Monday and Tuesday will arise on this Motion?

[That this House has no confidence in the ability of Her Majesty's Government to formulate or to carry through a programme which would bring about the necessary changes in our policies for international trade and for economic and political co-operation; and does not believe that it has the capacity to arouse of Great Britain the sense of urgency and national purpose so necessary to meet the situation created by the breakdown in the negotiations in Brussels.]

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I have, of course, noticed that rather remarkable Motion which has been tabled, to which the Government will today be tabling an Amendment.

Sir W. Teeling: Can my right hon. Friend remember when we last had a debate on Malta? In view of the statement made yesterday that we are about to hear in the next two or three days a statement from the Secretary of State for the Colonies and that a day or two after that my right hon. Friend himself is to go to Kenya, does he not think that it is high time that the people and Government of Malta got some kind of clue as to what the House feels both about the present conditions in Malta and since the Colonial Secretary is presumably about to do to bulldoze the Maltese Government into doing something which many of us think would be wrong?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult to construe this into just a question about business.

Mr. Macleod: Perhaps I may reply at least to part of the question, Mr. Speaker. Some time next week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be making a statement about one matter in relation to Malta which is very much in the mind of the House.

Mr. G. Thomas: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is a long time since he gave us the opportunity to discuss leasehold? Is he aware that this is still a very burning problem in South Wales? Has the passage of time softened him in any way? Does he think that we could discuss it next week on in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. Frankly, I cannot see an opportunity for some time, apart from the opportunities afforded by private Members' time or Supply days, since we are, as the House knows, now moving into the period of Supply and of defence debates, and so on. This, naturally, restricts very much the amount of Government time available.

Mr. W. Yates: Can my right hon. Friend say what official documents will be available for the debate on Monday? Is he aware that senior people in the French Government give totally different reasons for the failure of the Brussels talks? In order that we may have a real debate and not merely take part in a game of charades, could we have the documents which would show us what did and did not occur?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think that the position is in any doubt. In any case, we have had a series of reports on the negotiations by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. We do not contemplate a further White Paper before Monday.

Mr. Greenwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be possible to discuss the Report of the Royal Commission on the Police? If we are not to have such an opportunity in the immediate future, will he consider issuing a White Paper setting out the Government's attitude towards the Report?

Mr. Macleod: I hope to arrange for a debate some time, but I cannot define "some time" any more precisely. But it will be possible to debate the Report. I will discuss with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the point the hon. Gentleman raised in the second part of his Question.

Sir C. Osborne: Would it be possible to extend the time for the debate on the Common Market on Monday, since the issues to be discussed will affect this country more greatly than anything else for 100 years and many hon. Members will want to take part?

Mr. Macleod: We have had many debates on this subject and I would have thought that the general sense of the House was that two days is long enough.

Mr. Bowles: The right hon. Gentleman is always having to refuse time for debates on subjects about which hon. Members feel strongly. He is adept at introducing Guillotine Motions. Will he consider introducing one for the Finance Bill this year?

Mr. Macleod: It is an idea. [Laughter.] But I do think—if I may reply seriously —that at some time the House will have to address itself to this matter. The only way in which the House could find a considerable block of time for debating many matters, such as education, the Albemarle Report and leasehold reform, would be if it agreed that the great majority of the proceedings on the Finance Bill in Committee should go upstairs.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Can my right hon. Friend say when the House will be asked to give a Second Reading to the Television Bill?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. It is not in the immediate programme.

Mr. M. Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how strongly he has been pressed by the First Secretary of State for an immediate debate on the dramatic report of his visit to Central Africa?

Mr. Macleod: My right hon. Friend and I have not had any lengthy discussion on that point.

Mr. N. Pannell: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that since 8th November, and including today, 172 Questions have been put down for Oral Answer by the Home Secretary, but that only 75 have been reached? Is he aware that Questions to this Department are rarely reached at Question Time unless they are at the top of the list and that there is unlikely to be another opportunity to put Oral Questions to the Home Secretary until 4th April? Does he realise that I have been prevented, because my Questions have not been reached, from putting devastating supplementary questions? Will he consider the reallocation of Question Time in order to give the Home Office a better share of it?

Mr. Macleod: We review the rota for Questions several times a year, and always before any break. We will be looking at it again in the usual way before Easter.

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Finance Bill. Is he seriously considering the suggestion that he put forward, or some other method of avoiding late sittings and other problems which arise on the Bill?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. The position is that the House has appointed a Select Committee on Procedure, of which I am Chairman. We are at the moment considering the very complicated matter of the sub judice rule. When we have completed our discussions on that, I intend to invite the Committee to consider a number of matters—a programme for future work, as it were; and I would include this matter amongst them. It is interesting to see the support which my suggestion seems to have had from both sides of the House as at least a possibility.

Mr. Webster: When will we have a statement from the Minister of Transport on the Rochdale Report and a debate on it?

Mr. Macleod: The question of a debate will have to await the statement. I hope that will be made within two or three weeks.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not necessary for him to refer to the new Select Committee on Procedure the question of the Finance Bill and other matters? Does not he recall that his predecessor set up a Select Committee in 1958–59, the majority of whose recommendations for the more intelligent disposal of the time of the House were ignored by the Government of the day? What is the point of asking another busy group of hon. Members to consider these matters when we already have the recommendations made by the Select Committee which sat in 1958–59?

Mr. Macleod: I am well aware of the Report of the previous Select Committee on Procedure. Its arguments have been well aired. I do not suggest that there should be any lengthy re-examination of this question—that would not be necessary—but that it would be right for the Select Committee to consider it and submit a report.

Mr. Doughty: Will my right hon. Friend look into the question of early legislation to ratify the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, in view of the fact that such legislation would appear to be non-controversial and of great importance to the gas supply of this country?

Mr. Macleod: We have looked at that possibility, but I could not cover it in today's statement on business.

Mr. Mayhew: When can we have a statement and debate on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Press?

Mr. Macleod: Not in the business I have announced.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the poor, unfortunate Criminal Law (Scotland) Bill has suffered a great deal of victimisation by being pushed off from day to day and week to week? When will he find time to go ahead with it? Is he waiting to find a seat for the Lord Advocate?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I am not waiting for that. I had hoped to include the Bill in today's statement, but we decided

to take the National Assistance Regulations and I am sure that the House would agree with that priority. I take the point put by the hon. and learned Gentleman, however, I would like to bring the Bill before the House at an early date.

Mr. Goodhart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the large number of hon. Members who will wish to take part in the debate on the Common Market, will you consider accepting the recommendation of the last Select Committee on Procedure that an hour in the evening should be set aside for very short speeches during very important debates?

Mr. Speaker: I will, of course, do anything practicable which the House asks me to do. But the hon. Gentleman, and the House, will remember that that particular proposal had a rather divided reception. I would wish to be satisfied, first, that the House wanted it, and. secondly, I would have to have some power and a little direction whereby I was to do it. Perhaps the Leader of the House could help in this.

Mr. Macleod: If I might return to what I was saying, that can be studied by the Select Committee on Procedure which, I think, would be the right body to tender advice to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House.

Mr. Woodburn: Would it surprise the right hon. Gentleman to know that in Scottish debates hon. Members have for many years practised self-restraint and have voluntarily limited themselves to as near 15 minutes as possible?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, it would surprise me very much.

Mr. Speaker: May I say that that would appear to be an illustration of the difficulties attached to launching into this without guidance. Not only is there clearly a difference of view about self-restraint, but I find a difference of view about what is a short speech.

Mr. W. Yates: Would the Leader of the House consult the Leader of the Opposition, through the usual channels, to inquire whether we could not try the experiment once, during the debate next week, to see whether or not it worked?

Mr. Speaker: I have indicated that it will not work on Monday.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Congo

3.53 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): I believe that it would be for the convenience of the House if I were briefly to explain why we feel it right to ask for a supplementary sum of over £4 million under Class Vote 2, for the purchase of United Nations bonds and if there were to be a short debate. With the leave of the House, I will reply briefly, at the end of the debate, to the points raised.
I also believe that some of my hon. Friends will initiate debates on other subjects.
At the time of the 16th Session of the General Assembly, in 1961, the United Nations was heading rapidly towards bankruptcy. It was expected that by the end of the year its deficit would reach 100 million dollars. It was in these circumstances that the Secretary-General made his proposal for the issue of United Nations bonds. Her Majesty's Government voted for the resolution authorising the Secretary-General to issue bonds and on 29th January last year my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal announced Her Majesty's Government intention to buy bonds within a maximum of 12 million dollars.
Parliament passed the Appropriations Bill containing token provision and authority for our purchase of bonds at the end of July last year and the bonds were bought in October out of moneys provided by the Civil Contingencies Fund. The first repayment of principal and interest has already been made by the United Nations to us in accordance with the terms of the resolution and this Vote is, therefore, required to enable repayment to be made to the Civil Contingencies Fund.
As the House knows, the bond issue was intended to meet the crisis in the organisation's finances caused by the failure of so many countries to pay their

assessed contributions. Her Majesty's Government participated in the bond issue because, despite reservations we may have had about certain aspects of United Nations policies, we remain one of its most loyal supporters. The bonds were the only means of saving the United Nations from bankruptcy and impotence. It was not in our interest or that of the world that that should happen and we regarded it as a duty on ourselves, as upon other Governments, to contribute to it.
In deciding the amounts and the timing of our purchases, we took into account the cash requirements of the organisation at the time and the extent to which other countries had contributed. In October last, when we made the purchase, it was estimated that by the end of 1962 the organisation's deficit would be almost 200 million dollars. At that time 54 members had bought bonds or had announced their intention to do so; and 45 million dollars worth had been purchased. These countries included three members of the Commonwealth—Australia, Canada and New Zealand—which, between them, had already purchased an amount almost equal to the total United Kingdom commitment.
The two considerations which attached to the United Kingdom undertaking to purchase had been met and we therefore honoured our pledge. The present situation is that bonds to the value of over 120 million dollars have so far been purchased and if all the pledges made are fulfilled it is anticipated that the total will be 170 million dollars.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs knows that when my hon. Friends and I tabled an Amendment to reduce by £4 million the Foreign Office Supplementary Estimate in connection with the purchase of United Nations bonds we were not making our first protest. We made our protest from the very beginning and we have held to our position.
My hon. Friend has described how it comes about that the House is now asked to fall in with his suggestion. He says that this bond issue was necessary if the United Nations was to be saved from bankruptcy. I would inform him that there are thousands of taxpayers


in this country who are unwilling to relieve the financial bankruptcy of the United Nations until it shows some sense of recovery from its own moral bankruptcy. This is the burden of our protest.
I find in my constituency—and I have no doubt that other hon. Members find similar feelings in their constituencies—the greatest concern at the actions of the United Nations in the Congo and Katanga. I addressed a branch of the United Nations Association in my constituency some time ago, and at that meeting there was revealed to me the most deep anxiety and grave concern at what had recently been happening in the third United Nations offensive against Katanga.
I am grateful for this opportunity of raising the matter because, whatever hon. Members opposite may say about it, this subject deeply worries a great number of people in this country, without distinction of party. I appreciated the introductory remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I am sorry for him, however, because he has come here to defend the indefensible. Britain's Congo contributions, whatever the niceties of accounting, have gone towards the undermining of British and European interests.
They have gone towards the subversion of good African friends of the West. They have gone towards unscrupulous and cruel attempts to destroy a small African State and its nationalist leaders. British financial contributions which have been devoted to the Congo effort of the United Nations have done as much towards these undesirable ends as the ammunition which the Admiralty supplied to the United Nations forces or the transport aircraft supplied by the Royal Air Force.
I have no personal interest in the matter, although I have been flatteringly described in a weekly organ as one of the founder-members of the Katanga Lobby. I have no shares in Tanganyika Concessions or in any other African concern, but I would say this about Union Minière. It is really to Union Minière that Katanga owes the prosperity that has become, literally, the envy of others, and if we proceed on the not unreasonable assumption that this great concern pur-

sues its own business interests, what does the Union Minière want?
I submit that it wants peace and stability, in which prosperity can grow and social progress can proceed, and I fully concede that it is up to African leaders to see that so great an enterprise contributes fully to African development by taxation or by whatever other means these leaders have in their power. Whatever the future of Union Minière, it is certainly a rich European legacy to advancing Africa.
The concern of Union Minière has surely been peace. Let those who attribute to it all sorts of conspiratorial undertakings, and condemn it without very much knowledge or consideration, reflect whether there might not be other interests which, in contradistinction to Union Minière, have profited or sought to profit from war in Katanga. When one asks who may have benefited from three acts of aggression—the turning of Elisabethville into a "Budapest", the bombardment of hospitals, communications and utilities, and the slaughter of innocent civilians, African and European, one should look for those who would profit either by an "Abadan" of the European interest there, or, in times of over-production of copper, by bringing its mines to a stop.
I will not delay the House by going into this in great detail, but I would commend to hon. Members a speech that is in the Congressional Record of the United States of 12th December—

Mr. H. Wilson: By Senator Dodd.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Not by Senator Dodd, as the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) says from a sedentary position, but by Representative Bruce, a member of the House of Representatives who, by penetrating research, voluminously documented, has disclosed possibilities and ramifications of hideous fascination, which have in large measure been confirmed as to the facts, although obviously he could not comment on the conclusions by the Belgian Foreign Minister, M. Spaak, who is certainly not pro-Tshombe, in a speech in the Belgian Senate. Hon. Members can find these sources for themselves if they are interested.
It appears from these allegations—which at least are worthy of investigation by those who are so anxious to investigate European interests in this part of the world—that in June, 1961, a group of private Swedish and American financiers formed and incorporated in Switzerland a new company—to do what? To exploit the natural resources of Katanga. These were hard-headed businessmen. They could only have formed the company on the assumption that the existing state of affairs in Katanga would soon be broken. This company, as I understand—and if I am in error I shall be glad to be corrected—was formed in June. 1961, and in the autumn of 1961 there followed the second United Nations offensive.
I think that sometimes too much emphasis is placed on the economic interests at stake in Katanga. There are also important strategic interests of concern to those who want to subvert British, European and Western interests in the whole of Southern Africa; those who want, above all, to discredit the idea that a partnership between Africans and Europeans can be practised, and not merely preached.
The base of Kamina in Katanga is a key position from which the subversion, or even the conquest, of other territories of Southern Africa could conveniently take place. Even at this moment, armies are being trained in the Congo for the invasion of Portuguese territories—the armies of Holden and Andrade. If it is possible, I should like to hear from the Under-Secretary whether the United Nations, which is concerned with peace and security, is doing anything to request the Government in Leopoldville to bring the training of those armies to an end.
Shortly before the House rose for the Christmas Recess, I put it to the Leader of the House that many of us would not go quietly or comfortably away for our holidays if we thought that Christmas was to be desecrated by a third United Nations offensive in Katanga. It was on Christmas Eve that that offensive began—that offensive whose professed purpose was to secure freedom of movement for United Nations forces—

Mr. Humphry Berkeley: Who does my hon. Friend think started it?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: It is difficult to distinguish how the fighting began. The communiqué issued by the Katanga authorities will give one picture, and that issued by the United Nations will give a slightly different one.
I will give it to my hon. Friend, if he wants it, that the fighting began on the side of the Katanga gendarmerie who were at the time without those European officers who kept better discipline than some other officers. But, from an incident that should have been stopped, and which the British Consul and others made valiant efforts to stop, arose the third United Nations offensive.
We heard a lot about the securing of freedom of movement. That sounded plausible to many, but it became very clear that a full-scale campaign had been launched once again in full contravention of the Security Council's express assurance—which was quoted yesterday in another place by my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary—that
United Nations Forces will not be a party to, or in any way intervene in, or be used to influence the outcome of, any internal conflict, constitutional or otherwise.
I freely admit that there are other hon. Members who are greater enthusiasts for the United Nations than I am. I am sure that they will be the first to appreciate how tragic it is that an organisation dedicated to peace and self-determination should make war to deny selfdetermination—and particularly tragic for us in these islands that Irish troops and Commonwealth troops should have been involved. It is not surprising that grave misgivings have been expressed in the Dail and Senate across the water. When one considers the history of Britain and Ireland, and thinks, perhaps, of the "Black-and-Tans" who were used to prevent, or to try to prevent, the secession of Ireland, one feels sorry that Irish soldiers should have been put in such a position.
It is tragic that Commonwealth troops have been involved, but I say with pride that none or hardly any of these serious allegations against the conduct of the United Nations forces referred to the forces of the Irish Republic or of any Commonwealth country. But not only in the latest offensive, but in the offensives that preceded it, there have been levelled, and not investigated, the gravest allegations of breaches of common decency,


military honour, the laws of war and international conventions.
Millions of people saw on television what happened to one victim, and what happened to one Belgian lady happened to countless Africans. The Vicar-General of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Elisabethville has given to the United Nations Command a report of what he said his own clergy in the African parishes of the city witnessed when Ethiopian troops of the United Nations put to death more than 100 civilians. He went on to report that two women and a girl were disembowelled with bayonets after being repeatedly raped. This is a statement by a respected religious leader which requires investigation.

Mr. Arthur Holt: Mr. Arthur Holt (Bolton, West) rose—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I will give way after I have finished this point.
The Vicar-General continued:
The Commanding Officer of an Ethiopian unit visited the Benedictine monastery at Lubumbashi where there had been looting and the Ethiopian officer said, 'They are children; one must make allowances for them'.
These are the soldiers of the United Nations.

Mr. Holt: We all know that there have been regrettable cases. Is it the hon. Members view that, had the United Nations not been there, there would have been fewer of these cases? If that is so, would he explain to the House how he would have brought about in this explosive Congo a more peaceful settlement?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: If the United Nations forces had not entered Katanga there would have been no war. There was no war before they entered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that at the beginning there were disturbances in Katanga, but nothing like the anarchy in other parts of the former Belgian Congo. The United Nations first agreed, and the late Mr. Hammarskjold gave his word that there would only be a token United Nations force in Katanga. President Tshombe agreed to it. That undertaking was not kept. We know that there have been three offensives and these incidents took place during those three offensives.
I merely say that it is about time that all these allegations—and if there are any those against the Katangese gendarmerie—were investigated. All allegations should be investigated whether arising from the latest offensive or from the two preceding offensives. There have been no investigations so far. If any hon. Member says that he would be content with an investigation by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, whose integrity I respect, I would not regard that as impartial. We require an impartial international investigation and we should make that a condition of continued support for the Congo operations.

Mr. Berkeley: Will my hon. Friend allow me?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I want to continue with my argument.

Mr. Berkeley: Mr. Berkeley rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not Katanga.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) is trying to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I do not know whether he will be successful, but in the interest of other hon. Members I should like to continue.
There are these terrible allegations. Let them be investigated by an impartial international body. Perhaps it might be thought the International Red Cross cannot do it.

Mr. Berkeley: Why not?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Because it has very strong feelings about the murder of M. Georges Olivet and others of the International Red Cross. That is why, and it is not a funny thing, either.
I suggest quite calmly to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster that a body such as the International Commission of Jurists should be requested to carry out an impartial investigation into these allegations. It conducted an inquiry when there were allegations against the French Army at Bizerta. It seems to me to be a responsible body which could well conduct investigation into these horrible allegations.
I said earlier that the United Nations was dedicated to peace and self-determination and that it made war to


deny determination. This was also the opinion of Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who has given fifty years of his life to the service of Africans in a territory not far away from the one which we are discussing. He makes the point that when Belgian colonialism came to an end there remained a number of peoples who had been under the colonial régime and who, juridically, the day after afterwards were independent of each other. He made the point that no foreign State had the right to oblige one of them to submit to another.
Dr. Schweitzer went on:
It is, therefore, incomprehensible that a foreign Power is found making war on Katanga in order to force her to pay taxes to another Congolese State. How can a civilised country undertake such a thing? Still more strange, the United Nations has associated itself with this foreign country, thereby losing the respect it enjoyed in the world. It is not the mission of the United Nations to make war. Reason and justice therefore demand that this foreign country, as well as the United Nations, should withdraw their troops from Katanga, and henceforward respect its independence. The independence of Katanga derives from the fact that the empire of the Belgian Congo no longer exists….
I should have thought that a United Nations organisation worthy of its charter would try to ascertain the real desires of the people of Katanga.
I should have thought that a referendum would have been something which could have satisfied the different points of view as to the real feeling of the people of Katanga. I know that it is said that Mr. Tshombe does not have the support of the Baluhas. My impression is that he has the support of a great number of them. These are things which could be found out by an impartial referendum.
It is interesting to recall that at the round-table conference in Brussels in 1960, shortly before independence, the Katanga delegation proposed a referendum with the support at that time of Mr. Kasavubu. The people of Katanga have the right to self-determination. I understand that it has not been the view of the Katangan Government or of President Tshombe that Katanga should break away completely from the rest of the Congo. They have also desired to maintain essential links and to assist in the progress of the whole vast country. We hear of the secession of Katanga. What really happened was

that decolonisation was successful in Katanga and unsuccessful in other parts of the country.
It was secession not so much from the Congo as from chaos. Indeed, the same process of secession, if one cares to call it that, took place in other provinces of the former Belgian Congo because, in fact, there is no effective central Congolese Government whose writ runs much outside its own parish.
President Tshombe has always striven to ensure a loose confederation respecting the autonomy of Katanga. He had his own proposals for such a confederation in his hand when he was in Coquil Hatville in June, 1961, and was kidnapped and tortured for his pains. He is described as intransigent. We recall that, much more recently, Mr. Adoula refused to meet him in New York. If President Tshombe is regarded as intransigent, I am not surprised, recalling what happened in Coquil Hatville in June. 1961. Actually, it was Mr. Adoula who said in July, 1962, that
A federal régime is the one best suited to a country as large as ours, which offers the best guarantees of stability between the various groups which compose it.
It is not only the best suited system; it is the only system which has any chance at all of working.
It is to the credit of Her Majesty's Government, though I fear not very much of the story is to their credit, that Mr. Tshombe, with their help, accepted a new constitution, which, if it had been accepted by others, might well have achieved reconciliation. As hon. Members know, this new constitution was to have been drawn up by the Congolese Government, assisted by United Nations jurists, and presented, after consultation with the provincial Governments—who, under the new constitution, would become State Governments—to the Congo Parliament. This would have taken place in October.
It is another tragic aspect of all this that it was on the eve of reconciliation that fighting broke out again. The United Nations could, I suppose, say that, after having been beaten twice by a little country, it has now scored a victory. I think that it will probably turn out to be something of a Pyrrhic victory. If anyone's object was to deny that there was any Katanga nation or a desire for freedom and independence in Katanga, it is


now plain that the people of Katanga have achieved nationhood as a result of fighting together in defence of freedom and their homes. This is how people who may not have a very strong sense of nationalism in the first place do, in fact, achieve it.
The Katanga nation has been born in blood. There are white citizens and black citizens of this Katanga nation. They have fought together side by side. They fought for different reasons, as people always do in wars, but, objectively, they were fighting for a principle of Afro-European partnership which, I believe, is the only hope if Africa is to be saved from being a pawn in the East-West game.
Those who used to say that President Tshombe was a "stooge" of the mining company or of the Belgian colonialists have seen him in struggle and in disaster, and they have seen that he has always kept the support and affection of his people. He is not a "stooge". Many of my hon. Friends know him better than I do. I have met two of his able Ministers, Mr. Kimba and Mr. Kibwe. They are able men, able leaders of a nationalist State. At Kolwezi, the other day, where President Tshombe preferred peace and moderation to prestige and guerilla war, he said, addressing his gendarmerie:
For two and a half years, you have fought three times bravely against overwhelming odds. Lift your heads high. These foreigners will not be here for ever.
That is a message which we can echo and address to President Tshombe himself.
I have said that President Tshombe preferred peace and moderation to prestige and guerilla war. I believe that credit goes also to Her Majesty's Consul in Elisabethville, Mr. Dodson, to whom I pay a personal tribute. I pay a tribute also, in this sorry affair, to the personal efforts of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary.
In conclusion, I put a few questions to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who has been good enough to say that he will reply. With reference to the Secretary-General's speech which was announced yesterday, when may we expect the withdrawal of the United Nations forces from Katanga? Secondly, what progress is being made

in the fulfilment of the U Thant plan for reconciliation? Thirdly, what is the position of the refugees and how many of the refugees who fled from the United Nations forces remain? There has been a report that the Northern Rhodesian Government asked for United Nations help to pay for their relief and were refused. I hope that that is not true.
Now, a more general question on the future of the United Nations, for which we have been asked to purchase bonds. The Security Council, under the Charter, is mainly concerned with peace and security. When is it to meet to discuss the question of the Congo and Katanga? Of late, not only have we seen a usurpation of the functions of the Security Council by the General Assembly, but we have seen a usurpation of the functions of both the Security Council and the General Assembly by the Secretariat.
It is partly our fault. It is the fault of the Western Powers. When they thought, after their experience in Korea, that they might not always get their way in the Security Council, they agreed to back Mr. Dean Acheson's "Uniting for peace" resolution. In the United Kingdom, that was the responsibility of the Socialist Government. I would say that the record of the Socialist Government in regard to Article 2 (7) was very much better than the record of Her Majesty's present Government. That was another example of lawlessness within the United Nations. It was an example of trying to make up the rules to suit oneself at any moment as one goes along. It was lawlessness within the United Nations, an organisation supposed to stand for international law.
The United Nations has given to the Congo a good deal of civil assistance, at heavy cost. The Belgian colonialists were much cheaper. The United Nations military intervention in Katanga has, in my opinion, been a series of bloody crimes and costly blunders, for which we pay in every sense. Her Majesty's Government have been compounding an international felony. By buying United Nations bonds we finance our own undoing.
I beg the Government not to underestimate the feeling on this side of the House and throughout the country. I believe that, by continuing to support things such as I have described, we shall


show ourselves unworthy of those we represent and steep our country in dishonour.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I rise on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends to draw a mantle of protection over the Government from the kind of speech to which we have just had to listen. If that speech is the nature of the quality of the views of a substantial number of Conservative back benchers then we, for our part, can understand very clearly some of the wriggles and vacillations of the Government in the whole Congo business over the past eighteen months.
Personally, I doubt whether our support will be needed on this, whether in a debate or a Division, but the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) warned the Government that the views to which he has just been giving expression represented those of a substantial number of people in the Conservative Party in the House and in the country. If that is true he had better show how substantial it is in the Division Lobby when we come to decide about this £4 million bond issue. I do not think that it will be necessary for the Government to rely on our votes to save them from the hon. Gentleman and his Friends, but let him make good that boast by leading his troops into the Division Lobby.
Although there are few things I regard with greater aversion than marching through the Division Lobby with hon. Gentlemen opposite, if it is an issue of the United Nations against the kind of attack that we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite we shall not care who goes through the Division Lobby.
As far as we can tell, there are about three back benchers opposite who hold these views, and if there is one thing which should satisfy all Members of the House it is that all three of them represent highly marginal seats and, therefore, we shall not have to put up with them much longer.
I will say to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling), knowing the depth of his feelings on many things, that I do not expect to hear from him a speech of the squalor that we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman opposite. May I say to the hon.

Gentleman that if he wants to sink to the level of his hon. Friends, and make a speech like that, he will regret it. One thing we can be certain of is that when other hon. Members have spoken we shall not have to put up with this sort of speech in the House much longer.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Let us hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman will. The hon. Gentleman said that he had no financial interest in this matter, that he held no shares in the Tanganyika Concessions or the Union Miniére. Of course, we accept that statement from him. He does not need to have a financial interest if he has a mind so twisted and out of tune with this century as to make the sort of speech that he has made.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: Let us hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman wants to get up and support the speech we have just listened to, we shall be very glad to hear him.

Sir K. Pickthorn: If I want to get up and support a speech, and if the Chair allows me to I will, but I am bound to say that on a matter of this serious aspect and importance it begins to be a little boring to hear so long a time wasted on personal abuse before the speech begins.

Mr. Wilson: This is not a question of personal abuse, because, as I understand it, and the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, the two sides of the House are in agreement in voting this money; but what we must not allow to go out from the House is any suggestion that any substantial number of Members on either side of the House could possibly agree with what we have had to put up with this afternoon.

Mr. Paul Williams: The right hon. Gentleman did not have to listen to it. He could have gone out.

Mr. Wilson: I am not going out and leaving the hon. Member in command of the Chamber, having made a speech of that kind. It will be answered and voted down.
The hon. Gentleman referred to those who had profited from war in the Congo. Those who have profited from what he called "free United Nations aggression". Who are the people who have profited? The mercenaries? Does anyone in this House, in this day and age, really defend soldiers of fortune, some of them the most squalid riff-raff from the North African Fascists who were not allowed by the French to stay in Algeria during the war? Does anyone defend them? They have done very well out of the war, but surely no hon. Member will defend this system of mercenaries in this particular age.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Black and Tans. I have never thought much of them, heaven knows, but nobody in this House would want to blacken their memories by comparing them with the mercenaries in the Congo.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I did not do that. I said that if I were an Irish soldier I would be worried because of the memory of what had happened at the time when a British Government were trying to prevent the secession of the Irish.

Mr. Wilson: If that is what the hon. Gentleman meant, all right. I am only giving so much attention to the hon. Gentleman's speech—and I do not think that many people will feel it is worth much attention—because he put in articulate form a great deal which has been gossiped and whispered about by a number of interested parties in this country for a long time past. I think that the reason for the bad record of the Government on this is due to the fact that they thought these pressures put on them by public relation firms, by some back benchers and by financial interests had more substance than they really had, Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not feel that we are in any way over-valuing the contribution which he made to our debate.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I do not mind what the right hon. Gentleman thinks of my speech, but I would invite him to refer to the Congressional Record. He thought I was referring to a senator; I was actually referring to a member of the House of Representatives. It is a tremendously complicated matter. He may find the facts set out there are not worthy

of reply, but I would invite his attention to the important facts, which were also quoted by the Foreign Minister in the Belgian Senate, and we can all make our conclusions.

Mr. Wilson: I am very well aware of what has been said in the American Congress, both by Senator Dodd and in the House of Representatives by Representative Bruce, I am sure that we are all aware of the American Katanga "lobby", it is a highly financed body, and also the speeches put out by it, but I now intend to come to the points in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
The hon. Gentleman—and here he was thinking of views which have been expressed rather more by the Foreign Secretary—was dealing with a point, and I accept that it is a fair point to develop, as to whether what has been going on in Katanga has been the putting down of violence by the United Nations or the imposition of a political solution. I agree that this is an important point for discussion.
I think that for all of us it is a matter of concern and regret that the United Nations are forced to act in the rôle of a policeman. Certainly, I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt)—and many of us have said this in the House—that some of the deaths and murders to which the hon. Gentleman referred, from whichever side they come, are utterly to be deplored. Certainly, nobody on this side of the House, or opposite, holds any brief for them and I am in favour of a thorough investigation, but it will have to be a wide-ranging investigation.
As I have said before, we are so used to the cartoons by David Low and others showing the United Nations, or the old League of Nations, in the rôle of a slightly pathetic maiden, spurned by the Governments of different countries, that when we find the United Nations putting on the garb of a policeman, using a truncheon and hitting people, it is a little shocking to us. On the other hand, every one of us knows that if this had not happened in the Congo there would have been civil war and there would have been chaos on a far greater scale than actually happened.
The hon. Gentleman, in one part tit his speech, seemed to be speaking with


almost a slightly Marxist tinge. He gave a materialistic interpretation of what has been going on in the Congo, with all these stories about mysterious companies which got "fed up" in Switzerland and all these mysterious financiers, and then three months afterwards war breaks out in the Congo. We have read all this before. It was published before the First World War by some of the most violent Communist writers.
Perhaps they had reasons for what they wrote, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is being very imaginative in drawing this picture of a vast capitalist plot, with these mysterious financiers—bearded, no doubt—bribing the United Nations, U Thant, and the rest of them, to embark on these wars or aggression against the peace-loving Africans in the Congo.
But, of course, it is true that people have made money out of it; I agree with the hon. Gentleman. What about some of these people ferrying military aircraft into Katanga for use against the United Nations, against the people of the Congo and, indeed, against some of the people in Katanga? The hon. Gentleman says that Adoula's writ does not run throughout the Congo. He knows that Mr. Tshombe's writ does not run throughout Katanga. The tribal situation in Katanga is such that Mr. Tshombe is to no extent law in that country, nor has he been at any time.
But what about some of the traffickers in armaments who have been buying up military planes and transferring them? There has been ready money for them there. Some of them have been flown in through Africa and some through Portuguese territories, and we understand that some of them were bought in Europe and ferried out there. Somebody has made a great deal of money out of all this, which must have come from somewhere. We know where it came from—from the contributions from Union Miniére, illegally withheld by Mr. Tshombe instead of being handed to the central Government of the Congo.
The hon. Member for Chigwell referred to bringing the Katanga mines to a standstill. He was envisaging sinister copper interests on Wall Street trying to bring the Katanga mines to a standstill. However, we know that that is passing into the mythology of hon. Members

opposite. Who sought to bring the Katanga mines to a standstill?—Mr. Tshombe, when he did not get his own way. As long as he was able to get the money from them, that was one thing, but once M. Spaak came out in favour of a reallocation of the Union Miniére revenue and as soon as the U Thant plan of last autumn came into existence, Mr. Tshombe turned against the people who had been feeding him.
Mr. Tshombe turned against Union Miniére and threatened to blow it up. One thing which held up the implementation of the United Nations plan last autumn was the fear of the Union Miniére, of the Belgian Government and of the United Nations that they would not be able to prevent Mr. Tshombe from sabotaging the installations in Katanga.
The hon. Member referred to the stories about atrocities. I agree that some of them are very serious, and no one would seek to defend them. However, I am bound to say that further investigation of some of the atrocity stories that hon. Members were peddling a year ago have not shown the results that they might have expected.
During earlier debates that we had on the Congo we heard of stories put out by a chairman of the Red Cross in Katanga. I should have thought that anyone would accept his statements about atrocities at their face value, but when it was discovered that this particular chairman of the Red Cross was a displaced Belgian financier who had been sent back home to Belgium by his own Government, the Belgian Government, one became more disposed to question his bona fides as an independent authority on these atrocities. However, I would support an investigation into some of the more recent cases. We would want such an investigation to be wide-ranging. We would also be prepared to support the Government in a proposal for an increase in our purchase of bonds and to agree to whatever money is necessary to have investigations into these matters and the facts made available.
One thing that I would want to be investigated is the whole record of Mr. Tshombe's promises, and the broken promises, of last year. Another thing I should like to be investigated is the complete record of Mr. Tshombe's relationship with Sir Roy Welensky throughout the whole two-year period.
Another thing I would want to be investigated is the instructions given by Her Majesty's Government to our consul in Elisabethville. Another thing I should like to see investigated is the rôle of the Katanga propaganda organisation and not least the activities of some of the public relations firms, with which our public life is becoming more and more infested, during this whole operation.
We know perfectly well who is behind all this propaganda—a former official of the Conservative Central Office who is making big money representing in this country not only the Union Miniére and Tanganyika Concessions, but the Spanish and Portuguese Governments and the whole record of Portuguese aggression in Angola and Mozambique. This should be brought to light. It would be a revealing commentary not only on what goes on in darkest Africa, but on the seamier side of our political life in this country, and on the question whether the United Nations should have intervened in the first place.
The Congo was in a state of chaos after the Belgians handed over. If this proves anything at all, it is that the Belgian record in colonial administration has been very different from our own. When we gave self-government to Tanganyika, it was a different story because successive Governments in this country—[Interruption.] I know that there have been difficulties in this country over the 700 years' march to democracy. It is obvious that there are difficulties yet.
Successive Governments, Conservative as well as Labour, have worked to bring the people of Tanganyika to the point at which they could safely be given self-government. This was not done in the case of the Congo, and the reason it was not done was that there were too many people in the Belgian Parliament and too many Belgian financial interests with the same attitude and approach to these problems as two or three hon. Members opposite.

Sir William Teeling: Tanganyika was not British originally. It was originally German. We were in the hands of the United Nations in this matter.

Mr. Wilson: Originally, Tanganyika was German territory, but we have had responsibility for it for a long time. Both

Governments had a mandate from the League of Nations at first and then from the United Nations. What matters is not the form of the control, but what we did with that form.
I have said, fairly, that Conservative and Labour Governments in this country have a record of which they can be proud in respect of Tanganyika. The same cannot be said of the Belgian Government in relation to the Congo. What would have happened in the Congo if the United Nations had not intervened? The answer is absolutely plain. It would have become a cockpit for conflict between the major Powers. Does anyone think that Russia would have stood aside if there had been civil war in the Congo and fighting between the central Congolese Government and, for example, Gizenga? Of course, the Russians were watching for their chance to move in there.
The one thing which the United Nations has achieved—it has had to do a very dirty job, and no one wished it to have to do it—is that it has prevented this very dangerous situation from exploding into possibly a third world war, or, at the very best, into something rather like what happened in Spain in the 1930s.
I come, finally, to the references which have been made not only by the hon. Member for Chigwell but, in his usual silent P.R.O. fashion, by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary during the Recess. Statements were put out through his public relations department about the responsibility for the outbreak of the fighting. We have had debates about what happened a year ago after the cease-fire was broken by Mr. Tshombe. There was fighting and road blocks were built. There can be no doubt about the responsibility for the outbreak of the fighting just after Christmas in 1962.
Mr. Tshombe promised a cease-fire. Even the Daily Express, which, like the hon. Member for Chigwell, is not noted for its enthusiasm for the United Nations, printed a report—I have not looked it up today, because I did not know that I should have to reply to a speech such as that which we have heard today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We on this side have the right to reply because our hands are clean in this matter.
I was referring to the Daily Express, which carried a report saying that Mr. Tshombe was taken round and shown


who were doing the firing. He knew that the firing was being done by his own people. He promised to order a cease-fire, but firing did not cease. What happened? Did he not carry out his promise? He has so often failed to carry out promises that that is a conceivable explanation of what occurred. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us.
Did he, in fact, give a promise that he would order a cease-fire, or did he, having issued an order for a cease-fire, quietly go and countermand it by other channels? What was the story I heard about the secret telephone call?—that after he had given the order for a ceasefire he went into the bedroom in the particular house where the meeting took place and was heard to say, "Take no notice of the order I have just given".
I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to give us the facts on this. He will have had the reports from both sides.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the right hon. Gentleman assume that I was in that room?

Mr. Wilson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in that room, but, certainly, the Under-Secretary should have had reports from our ambassador on that point and I want him to tell us what was said.
Or perhaps Mr. Tshombe, in good faith—if I can use that phrase in connection with that particular gentleman—gave the order and did not countermand it. Perhaps it was simply a question—I am prepared to believe it was—that his writ did not run with the gendarmerie and the mercenaries; because there have been many occasions during the past two years when he has given orders which were not carried out and when there was evidence that he wanted them carried out. This may be the answer, but, certainly, a cease-fire did not occur and it was not until the United Nations had ended the fighting and got rid of the road blocks that it was possible to make peace in Katanga.
The hon. Gentleman may call that imposing a political solution. I do not. I call it the imposing of peace when peace was being broken wantonly by a small gang of people who have been breaking the peace in the Congo for the last three years. One result has been

that certainly there will now be much better hope of a political solution there. For one thing, there is a real hope that Mr. Tshombe will start to carry out his words. The number of promises he has made about sharing the revenue and has then broken, suggest to us that one wants some clear guarantees before accepting his word again.
What happened? He threatened to blow up the Union Minière. He mined bridges in Kolwezi and it needed the fullest vigilance on the part of the United Nations and a great deal of generosity by United Nations political leaders in the Congo before Mr. Tshombe finally agreed not to blow the whole place up and bring it down with himself.
The last thing I want to say is this: the hon. Gentleman quoted with almost a catch in his voice the message given by one of the leading Katangese, authorities, one of the generals or ministers, when he addressed the gendarmerie and referred to the hope he had that there would be a day when all the foreigners were out. The implication of what the hon. Gentleman read was that he looks forward to the time when the United Nations pulls its forces out of the Congo and the gendarmerie are free to do what they were doing before. The hon. Gentleman associated himself with that particular message. I want to warn hon. Gentlemen who may share that view—and I do not think there are many of them—against the danger of that course.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Africans in Katanga do not want a continuance of foreign domination?

Mr. Wilson: The majority of them do not want this situation to continue. They do not want these road blocks set up. No one wants a continuation of the United Nations military force for a day longer than is necessary but let us be clear on this. The United Nations now have a much bigger job of social and economic reconstruction than even the job they faced in the military sphere two years ago, and the speech of the hon. Gentleman will not help to create the conditions in which that can be done.

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington): Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that as far as African opinion has been able to


express itself it has been anti-Tshombe, as has been proved by the letter signed by six chiefs, including relations of Mr. Tshombe himself?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, I recall that. I gather that his relations are not quite so cohesive as the relations of certain Ministers on the Government Front Bench, although, personally, I would not myself base a complete case on those particular letters. All I would say is that there is no evidence at all that Mr. Tshombe is accepted throughout Katanga; indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary.
What we are debating is the purchase of bonds from the United Nations. We support the Government in purchasing these bonds. We pressed them to buy these bonds last year, when they were afraid to face hon. Gentlemen opposite on this question. We have pressed at various times that they should have bought a larger quantity.
I should be out of order if I were to state now the arguments for my suggestion that more bonds should have been bought, but when hon. Gentlemen opposite denigrate the United Nations, and it is clear from the hon. Gentleman's speech that he would not have supported any form of United Nations organisation in which there was a majority of foreigners—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On the contrary, I would support a United Nations in which the Charter, in its original and legal form, was properly applied and the functions reserved under the Charter to the Security Council were returned to that body.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman can show his support for those pious words by voting for the purchase of the bonds, because that is the situation which exists.

Mr. P. Williams: That is not the situation.

Mr. Wilson: It is, but no one would accuse the Foreign Secretary of being over-enthusiastic either for the idea of collective security or the United Nations. In his time he has made some tough speeches against the United Nations and his actions have shown great disloyalty to the United Nations.
But I want to be fair to the Foreign Secretary and I wish we had him here to be fair to, because when he went on

television at the time of the Cuba crisis last year he paid a most moving tribute to Mr. U Thant and the United Nations for the part they had played in bringing about a settlement of the Cuba question.
When we have all paid tribute to Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev for the restraint they showed during that weekend, we must accept that without the work of Mr. U Thant at that time peace over Cuba would have been infinitely harder to secure; and if that is so, then I believe that the purchase of the bonds is a small token of thanks for what has been achieved.
I cannot make a case for increasing the purchase, for that would be out of order, but at least I can make a case for opposing those who hope to vote against it. I hope that when this debate ends hon. Members who speak with the violence of which the hon. Gentleman was capable will back that violence with action and show how many there are to go into the Division Lobby.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone): Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would not he agree that those countries which are in default in the payments which they ought to make to the United Nations ought not to be allowed to take part in the operations of the United Nations without first making their payments? And does not the need for these bonds arise because of default by other nations in the payments they ought to make?

Mr. Wilson: In part that is true, but, of course, a number of nations, including particularly the Communist bloc, had exactly the same kind of argument about the Congo operations as the hon. Gentleman. They were opposed to the United Nations, perhaps for a different reason; and because of that they argued that the financing of such operations did not fall within the ordinary finance of the United Nations.
Hon. Gentlemen on both sides supported the reference of this question to the International Court and that Court has given the reply which many of us hoped and expected—that there was an obligation on all members of the United Nations to finance the special operations as well as the ordinary day-to-day work of the United Nations.
As to the question whether certain nations should be deprived of their right to vote and to take part in collective decisions of United Nations until they have honoured their financial obligations, that is a matter which is provided for in the Charter.

5.0 p.m.

Sir William Teeling: I shall try not to get carried away by some of the tantalising points raised by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) in various parts of his speech. I should, however, like to point a few things with regard to the £4 million given or loaned and to remind my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State that it was exactly eleven months ago—on Wednesday 7th March, last year—that I had an Adjournment debate on the subject of various people, almost all of them British subjects, some of them British subjects who were Rhodesians, who were either murdered or raped or had their property attacked. I asked my hon. Friend whether, instead of paying out money to the United Nations, he would try to allow some of it to be paid back to the people who had been so attacked and molested.
The right hon. Member for Huyton has rather insinuated that the remarks I then made in March, which I will not elaborate in detail because they are to be found in HANSARD, have not been properly answered by the Foreign Office and, therefore, were perhaps untrue. All that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said at the tame was that he would go into the remarks I had made and see what could be done. We do not know the answer, but, no doubt, we will get it today.
Yesterday, on the tape last night and again in the news this morning, we read what U Thant had said with regard to the future of the Congo and especially about Katanga. To my mind, he is super-optimistic about how well things will go in the future. After having heard U Thant speak to Members of both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall and after having seen and had long talks with Tshombe on these matters, it seems to me that U Thant is strongly briefed on one side and very little briefed on the other side.
For example, U Thant told us at that time in Westminster, or at least gave me the impression, that what worried him most about the whole Congo question and especially about Katanga was the financial question. He felt that unless the money that hitherto was provided by the Union Miniére and other organisations—not only, mind you, by the Union Miniére—to the Katanga Government was paid direct to Leopoldville, the Adoula Government would probably collapse unless, again, the United Nations was able to find the difference and help it to carry on. I was one of those who pointed out to U Thant that the sums that could possibly come from Katanga through the Union Miniére or through any organisation would only, at most, reach about one-third of the total amount which the Adoula Government needed to balance its budget.
All that forgot also the fact that by taking the money from Katanga to Adoula, there would be nothing left for running Katanga, for the gendarmerie or the general organisation of the country, and that if the amount of all this were to be reduced still further it would be of even less use to Adoula.
That being so, it seemed rather a surprise to U Thant. He had a vague idea that if one could get everything away from Tshombe, if one could get all the Katanga money, the position would be reached whereby Adoula would be almost certain to carry on; he probably could carry on for two or three months longer than the United Nations felt that it could itself cope with the gap. U Thant kept on saying, as others have said subsequently, both privately and even publicly, that if Tshombe could be got to share an interest with Adoula in running the Government in Leopoldville, all would go well.
I asked U Thant whether he realised the distances between Elisabethville and Leopoldville. It seemed more or less to him as if it was roughly the same as speaking of California and Washington, whereas, as Tshombe pointed out to me, the distance between the two is roughly the distance between Yugoslavia and London. In addition, whereas it is easy to get from California to Washington by air and also by road, it is almost impossible to get from Elisabethville to


Leopoldville except by air, which nine-tenths of the citizens of Katanga could not possibly afford. All those areas of the country are not, and never have been, in touch.
Tshombe spoke to me about what might happen if he went to Leopoldville, as he had done once before. Tshombe reminded me that but for the protection given by certain Members of Parliament in this House and as a result of their publicity, he would certainly have been murdered at that time in Leopoldville. He was left for three weeks in such a condition that his legs were completely swollen, he had practically nothing to eat and he was hardly allowed to sit down or to speak. Now, however, he is asked to go back and to become deputy-Prime Minister.
If there is any form of democracy in Leopoldville, a person does not become deputy-Prime Minister if he is unknown in the country and is so hated there that the British Embassy has all its windows broken for trying to support him. Nobody in Leopoldville connected with the local rêgime has any affection for Tshombe—let us face it—or for the Katanga people.
We talk about democracy out there, but we realise, I hope, that three times recently the Parliament in Leopoldville has voted against Adoula by a majority, not the legal two-thirds majority, but by sufficient of a majority to show anybody in this country that it certainly was not a governing majority in power. In the end, the Parliament of Adoula has been disbanded for three months so that he can get on and do what he is told from New York.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am sure that we all deplore the treatment given to Mr. Tshombe when in Leopoldville. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough, at an appropriate part of his speech, to say what he thinks about the treatment given to Mr. Lumumba in Katanga?

Sir W. Teeling: Yes, indeed; later, I will talk about Mr. Lumumba, Tshombe, however, was asked to go and to put himself once again in the hands of Adoula. That was a little more than anybody could expect of him.
Again, we seem to forget a tiny bit about history. The right hon. Member

for Huyton spoke rather as if the Congo affair has gone on for a long time or as if the question of its independence is of long standing. Does he realise that until 1959, only four years ago, there was practically no question of this? There is no need for his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) to look this matter up. I can give him the details of the last four or five years. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member would be good enough to listen to me for a moment.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I am much indebted to the hon. Member for this intervention. I have heard every word he has said. Whether it was worth it is quite another matter.

Sir W. Teeling: At least, I should like to know whether the hon. and learned Member was really listening and not telling his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton what he felt about it, as, I am sure, he was.
I know that hon. Members opposite think that it is monstrous to go back as far as 1880, but that is when it was first decided that Stanley and Brazza and King Leopold's representatives and various others went into the area to try to bring these tribes together in some way, in order to open up the rivers and the whole area. It took a lot of doing, and a long time, and when they eventually succeeded they found that the tribes in the area absolutely loathed each other, and had no trust in each other. They gave in to the Europeans only through bribery and generous offers of good food and clothing, and promises to develop the rivers, and so on.

Mr. Mitchison: I hope that the hon. Member will not cease from this practice of going back into history. One finds some very interesting cases. One can go back nine centuries, to the occasion when Harold got one in the eye from France.

Sir W. Teeling: I am going back only to a time ten years before the hon. and learned Member was born. I was trying to describe what happened at the time when Rhodesia, South Africa, and Tanganyika were being developed.
At the beginning of the century one found that Katanga was a completely different area. It had nothing to do with the rest of the Congo. It was moving


towards the East and South. The Katanga area was linked far more closely with Tanganyika, Uganda and Rhodesia than it was with the Congo. But it was taken over by Leopold of the Belgians and thrown into the same group as the rest of the Congo, about which nobody knew anything except Rhodes. He knew that there were some very valuable mines in Katanga, although they had not then been proved. Bismark agreed to Leopold having Katanga because it did not affect his idea of Tanganyika becoming German.
Only after that time did Katanga become of real importance. It is necessary to consider the psychology of Tshombe and the people running Katanga. Tshombe's number two is the grandson of the man who murdered many whites in the area when it was taken over. He was the chieftain of the area.
We must remember that this tremendous wealth came suddenly to Katanga, and that the country was directly ruled from Brussels and never from Leopoldville at all until the early thirties. That is why the Katangese have never wanted to be linked up in any way with the rest of the Congo. Tshombe is about forty years of age, and when he was being brought up there was no link, official or otherwise, with Leopoldville. His father-in-law and his brother-in-law were both chieftains of large tribes in Angola, Northern Rhodesia and Southern Katanga. Katanga's links are with the southern and not the western area.
That is why the people who support Tshombe do not want anything to do with the rest of the Congo. That is why Tshombe keeps on saying, "If only you will allow me to run my country properly, in the way I was trained to do by the Belgians, there will be no warring, shooting or murders, as there has been in all the troubles connected with Mr. Adoula and that side of the Congo".
I spoke earlier about U Thant's feeling that the Congo budget would be balanced by the money coming from Katanga. But in the old days the money never came into Leopoldville. The Congo round Leopoldville is roughly the same type of area as the French Congo, just across the river. There is no possibility of its achieving the high standard of living enjoyed by Katanga. If only the people

of Leopoldville would try to live as is done by the people of Brazzaville and French Congo, and the people around Mr. Adoula would be less extravagant, they could balance their budget a little better.
That is why Mr. Tshombe and his fellow Katangans feel that it is unfair that they should be linked with the area connected with Leopoldville. I understand why they have some difficulty in explaining their point of view to the English people. Hon. Members opposite are bored stiff at the suggestion that anybody should pay regard to the historical background of the matter. They expect the Katangans to be as well up in the latest news, from television and radio broadcasts, as are the English people. But the Katangans know nothing about the news. They happen to be tribesmen, and they want to be linked up with the people with whom they were linked before. They cannot understand why this place called the United Nations, in New York, should say that Nyasaland must be independent, and that Ruanda must be independent—and that country is practically next door to them—while Katanga should not be independent. Nobody here can be bothered to tell them why this should be so.
Mr. Tshombe thinks that he knows the answer, as do those who are connected with him. They say that the issue is being determined by a large capitalist system in the United States, which is closely connected with a former United Nations representative in Katanga and, indeed, with the Kennedy family itself as well as Anaconda Mines and the mines of Chile. They may be wrong, but that is what they believe. This may make the right hon. Member for Huyton laugh, but this is a form of sinister international capitalism, and there is no question but that the Socialist Party in this country has fallen for it hook, line and sinker. It is supporting the United Nations action all the time.

Mr. H. Wilson: What I am perhaps permitting myself to smile at is the extraordinary repetition of this Marxist interpretation of history that we keep getting from hon. Members opposite. This is not their usual approach to these matters.
Of course, we must always be on the look-out for sinister interpretations. I indicated one or two myself, today. But


I have discussed this matter very fully with senior members of the United States Administration whom I know and respect—and one of whom I have known for twenty years—as well as with the chief officials of the United Nations. I do not believe that this situation has had any effect upon the conduct either of the American Government or the United Nations. If it had, or if it was found that concessions were being given to these firms, I should be the first to oppose it.

Sir W. Teeing: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is not in touch with big business in the United States. He is obviously in touch only with the Administration. I am sure that he agrees that our Administration is not in touch with big business, either. But big business in the United States has an especial connection with the Congo, and is very anxious that the rich mines in Northern Rhodesia and Katanga should be controlled by big business in America—although not used by it—as are the Chilean mines which had their development curtailed in order to ensure that the United States should not have too much competition.
The right hon. Gentleman would do well to watch that point in future, because it would improve his knowledge of the international financial world, which he says he has nothing to do with but which he is convinced that I do have something to do with. I can only tell him that I know a little about it, and I am telling him what I am fairly certain is right.
The right hon. Member criticised the mercenaries. I do not mind him criticising mercenaries as such. There are, of course, mercenaries on both sides. No one could suggest that Ethiopians whom the Emperor has been glad to keep out of Ethiopia—those who rebelled against him and are wandering around the Congo—are not mercenaries. But the mercenaries to whom the right hon. Member referred are in many cases Belgians. Some of those Belgians felt that Leopold II behaved wrongly in taking over all that land.
He having done so, and the Belgian Government having walked out as they did in 1959, other Belgians have gone there—many, by the way, have relatives living in the country—to try to do all

they can to make it possible for black and white to work together, which is something which the right hon. Member does not seem to want.

Mr. H. Wilson: Of course I want it.

Sir W. Teeing: If so, why attack the one man, Tshombe, who is the only one educated by the Belgians who already had control of this area in Katanga before the Belgians left? When the Belgians left in 1959 a federal Parliament was promised within a very few years. That then became impossible because of Lumumba and what happened in Leopoldville. When it was shown to be possible to carry on a black and white régime in Katanga everything was done to get rid of those people. Anyone who knows Africa says that there are very few Africans who are really linked up with the whites and are capable of working with them, and the others are jealous.
We should not forget that one of the chief things which these mercenaries have done—I hope this is of interest to the right hon. Member—has been to fight pretty hard to try to defend our missionaries there. Not so very long ago I was in the Parliament in Salisbury. I still have the HANSARD from Salisbury of that date containing a speech by a coloured Member of Parliament who said, "We must not be too hard on these different tribes in Katanga." He said that it was quite true that a tribe about three weeks before had murdered eleven Roman Catholic Italian missionaries and nuns and sold their bodies for meat the next day in the streets. He said, "This to my mind is all wrong. You must not consider that all tribes do that sort of thing. My tribe would not do that. They would kill them, but they would not eat them."
I have got that from the HANSARD of the day in Salisbury. Those are the type of people one has to deal with. They are the type of people whom Tshombe is doing his best to suppress, but they do exist. The mercenaries have done their level best to make sure that these areas are protected and kept in the old traditions they were in under the Belgians. Now they are being pushed out as a result of what has happened in the last few weeks. We shall be left with United Nation troops who, according to U Thant, will probably not last for more than


about six months. We do not know what will happen after that, but I cannot believe that they will not have to stay there, whether they come from Ethiopia, India or Ghana. They will go down to the borders of Rhodesia and Angola.
Earlier I said that Tshombe pointed out that the distance between Leopoldville and Elisabethville was equivalent to that between London and Yugoslavia. I remember well when the Socialist Party was in power in this House, just after 1945, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) said one evening how different were the beliefs of of people in Yugoslavia from those of people in London. He had just received a letter from a lady in Yugoslavia who, having heard that the Socialist Party had won the General Election, wondered if my right hon. Friend would have to "take to the hills".
There is the same sort of thought at present in Katanga about what the people in Leopoldville would do when they control Katanga.
Coming nearer to Elisabethville, if we are to have Ethiopians and others who obviously are anti-British, ant Rhodesian, anti-Portuguese and anti-Angolese on the southern border, a very worrying position will arise in trying to protect the border which is one long jungle.
Yet we are still being asked to pay money to the United Nations so that these United Nations troops can patrol these borders. One country has been very practical about these matters. I mentioned earlier Brazzaville and other poor countries which France has helped in many ways. We have to be practical, whether we approve of de Gaulle or not. The French have pointed out that they are not going to help the United Nations in Katanga. Not only that, but they do not intend to give the equivalent amount of money which probably would be switched from ordinary United Nations funds to a fund for running the Congo. That may be of some help to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, who seemed to have a little difficulty in answering me the other day when I asked why we did not do something similar. He said that it could not be done. Obviously it could be done, for the French have succeeded in doing it without anyone being able to stop them.
Eleven months ago I raised with the Joint Under-Secretary the question of British subjects and British people with interests in the Katanga area. He then spoke very well in detail and at some length, saying that everything would be done to help to make quite sure that if it were the fault of the United Nations we would ask the United Nations to try to pay back the money. I asked him if from the money were were then giving to the United Nations, this extra loan, he could make sure that, in addition to paying our own British subjects, we could get money from the United Nations for this purpose. I have had no reply to that. It is worth remembering that many British subjects—who, of course, include Rhodesians—have been badly treated because of war and trouble in that area, which would never have taken place if the United Nations force had not gone there.
I therefore ask my hon. Friend what he can do to try to get compensation for these people. I beg him to consider whether it would not be far better, instead of handing all this money to the United Nations and obviously having no control over it as the United Nations is doing things which at least some of my hon. Friends feel should not be done—that that money should be put aside for other things, possibly to give a little extra in pensions to widows at home.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) in speaking in favour of the Government's proposal that we should buy £4 million worth of United Nations bonds. I have listened carefully to the speeches by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) in opposition to this expenditure. I was shocked by the speech of the hon. Member for Chigwell. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion introduced the machinations of some of the mining interests in the United States, but he adduced no evidence whatsoever. He made a number of assertions which smeared the officials of the United Nations, because it would be useless for the mining interests of the United States, or anywhere else, to seek to obtain concrete results unless they were able to


influence the United Nations officials in charge of operations and administration in the Congo.
If the hon. Member has any evidence, I hope that he will send it to U Thant, or our own Foreign Office, because if it were true this would be a matter which should be thoroughly investigated. Until he does, I hope that he will forgive me if I assert that we should take absolutely no notice of what he has said about that.

Sir W. Teeling: I sent the evidence as long as nearly a year ago.

Mr. Henderson: Perhaps the Under-Secretary can tell us what has been done with it.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Hear, hear.

Mr. Henderson: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Chigwell. He spoke with great emphasis and conviction and he made allegations which should be thoroughly and impartially investigated. No one would justify atrocities, whoever committed them, whether the United Nations Force in the Congo, or our own well-respected police forces in this country. There must always be some kind of investigation of that sort of thing.
On the other hand, he used extravagant language. He talked about the moral bankruptcy of the United Nations, of the gravest concern about the action of the United Nations in the Congo, of the aggressions of the United Nations, of bloody crimes and of the compounding of felonies. One would think from that that the United Nations was an entity with its own responsibilities and not under the control of any outside body, and that even our own Government had no responsibility for it. But that is not the position.
Let us examine the course of events in the Congo in the past two or three years. The first action taken by the Secretary-General followed resolutions and decisions by the Security Council and the General Assembly. The resolution in the General Assembly had the unanimous support of the Assembly, and one of the governments voting in favour was our own, the Government supported by hon. Members opposite. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton pointed out, the world was faced with a

grave situation. The Belgian Government had left the Belgian Congo without setting up an administration and there would have been chaos and anarchy if the United Nations had not taken action. We all know that the Communists were preparing to fish in troubled waters, and even if the Congo had not become a scene of conflict between East and West we would probably have had a civil war there on the lines which characterised the so-called non-intervention of the Spanish Civil War. In those circumstances, the United Nations decided to take action.
We have been told that the United Nations has been employing soldiers, perhaps not well trained, from Ethiopia, and some of them have been accused of atrocities. It is to be hoped that that allegation can be probed. But what was the United Nations to do? There is no United Nations permanent force, and so it had to improvise. It had to secure the co-operation of a number of governments, and we must remember that soldiers came from countries other than Ethiopia, from Sweden and Ireland and other civilised countries. A United Nations temporary force had to be improvised.

Mr. P. Williams: The right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) said that he hoped that certain things would be investigated. How substantial is that view? I do not doubt the right hon. and learned Member's honesty, but is he now agreeing with some of us that an impartial investigation should be set up, not under the United Nations, but an outside impartial investigation, to get at the facts on both sides?

Mr. Henderson: I do not want to be technical, but what investigation could there be outside the United Nations?

Sir W. Teeling: French.

Mr. Henderson: The United Nations is not a separate entity. It is an assembly of 103 nations, including our own, and unless we are to go outside that number, which we cannot do, all that we can do is to ask the Security Council to appoint some independent lawyers. If that is what is meant by an independent investigation, it would be acceptable to me. However, we must not forget that the United Nations is not something separate from the world's nations and governments, but


is composed of them. If it is suggested that there should be independent investigators who are not paid officials of the United Nations, that is a different matter.

Mr. Lubbock: Should not any such investigation include a similar investigation into atrocities committed by Mr. Tshombe and his minions?

Mr. Henderson: Not only the atrocities committed by Mr. Tshombe and his henchmen. I agree that we should go into the question of the financial operations of the Union Minière. Let us face the fact that if the Union Minière had withheld £10 million or £12 million a year from the Government of Katanga Mr. Tshombe would not then have lasted three months. Mr. Tshombe has been financed and has been enabled to engage mercenaries. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion did not seem to see much difference between mercenaries employed by President Tshombe and the enlisted soldiers of the various contingents sent to the Congo by the Security Council. His argument was a travesty of the position. If we take that view, there is no difference between employing d number of mercenaries at £40 or £50 a week and operating the machinery of the Charter, to which the hon. Gentleman for Chigwell paid homage, although he said that his difficulty was that the Charter was not being operated properly.
The original decision to send U.N. troops into the Congo was taken by the General Assembly and the Security Council under the terms of the Charter, of which Article 41 authorises the Security Council to take any action which it thinks necessary, even to the employment of force, to preserve the peace of the world in any part of the world.

Sir W. Teeing: Peace?

Mr. Henderson: Yes. If we take our minds back to the records of the time, we will find that there was great anxiety in the United Nations about the prospect of the situation in the Congo developing into a situation which might lead to world war. I think that it is to the credit of the United Nations that it took this action. It has prevented a conflict in which any outside Power is involved.
Now let us consider the allegation of the three aggressions, as I think the hon.

Gentleman called them. Those who have followed the course of events know that fighting started because road blocks were established which were cutting the communications of the United Nations forces. What else could they do in the circumstances, after they had repeatedly asked for the road blocks to be removed, but take the necessary military action to remove them? If that is aggression, it makes a complete farce of the use of the word. It means that every time a police force, be it national or international, has to take action to preserve law and order and preserve its authority to act effectively as a police force, that is aggression. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not serious in making that charge?
I believe that U Thant and his predecessor, Dag Hammarskjold, have carried out their responsibilities in accordance not only with the instructions they received from the Security Council, but those they received from the General Assembly. One must admit that there has been ambiguity in the terms of some of the resolutions and instructions which have been issued by the Security Council, and it may well be, in the light of our experience in the Congo, that if, unhappily, on any future occasion the Security Council has to take similar action, it will seek to avoid the use of ambiguous terms which I think place an unfair responsibility on the Secretary-General and his officials.
I am also prepared to admit that the United Nations commanders in the Congo may have made mistakes. Those who have wartime experience of commands and military officers know that just as politicians can make mistakes so can military commanders, especially when one gets right down to the company commander. After all, there is no staff. The logistics of it have had to be improvised. There is no trained General Staff behind this force. It comes from half-a-dozen countries. Of course there have been mistakes, and it would be wrong and futile to deny it, but the test we have to apply is whether the United Nations has played a part consistent with the responsibilities set out in the Charter in the settlement of the situation in the Congo, and I believe that we have every right to be grateful and thankful not only for the existence of the United Nations, but for the action it has taken.
What would have happened three years ago if there had been no United Nations?


What would have been the position in the Congo? There would have been a repetition of what took place in Spain, but with even worse consequences.

Sir W. Teeling: What does the right hon. Gentleman feel about Dr. Conor O'Brien's remarks?

Mr. Henderson: I have said that mistakes were made. I do not think that Dr. O'Brien has made a complete case. He has made various charges, and I have no doubt that it would be possible to substantiate some of them. It would be futile to suggest that with a situation such as has existed in the Congo for the last two years there have not been mistakes, but we are entitled to ask what would have happened if there had been no United Nations? What would have been the situation if the United Nations had refused to deal with the problem of the Congo?
On the other side of the coin, what has the United Nations, through its actions and operations, succeeded in achieving? I believe that it has prevented the Congo being dissolved in a welter of bloody anarchy. It has stabilised the position to the extent that it has given time for negotiations to take place. One of the difficulties is that President Tshombe has not been prepared to keep to his word. He has been a very slippery customer in the negotiations which have taken place during the last two years.
The United Nations has not sought to impose any political settlement on the Congo. Its objective was to prevent civil war, and by and large it has done so. Parallel with that the Secretary General has put forward his proposals for reconciliation, and anyone who has examined those proposals must agree that they would give a square deal to all sections of the community in the Congo. Tshombe accepts one day and goes back on his word the next. What can one do with an individual of that type? I believe that U Thant, who has shown himself to be not only a great administrator but a man of peace, has not only made a great contribution to the ultimate solution of the Congo, but has done a great deal to establish the prestige and moral influence of the United Nations and to maintain and strengthen its organisation. I believe that the Government's proposal to purchase twelve million dollars worth of

bonds will help along those lines, and I support it.
The hon. Member for Chigwell is ranging himself with the Governments of the Soviet Union and France who do not want the United Nations to be effective in territories such as the Congo. I think that the people of this country believe in the Charter of the United Nations and the work it is doing, and I believe that this House, if it comes to a Division, will show that there are only two or three Members who distrust the United Nations and criticise what it is doing.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Humphry Berkeley: I find myself more in agreement with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), and the right hon. Member for Huyton, (Mr. H. Wilson), than with my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and my hon. and venerable Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling).
I suppose one ought to pay at least some polite deference to the Supplementary Estimates we are discussing, and I therefore say that I support the purchase of these United Nations bonds. In fact, I wish that the sum was somewhat larger.
I was sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell did not feel strong enough to take some of the interruptions which I was proposing to make. I should be delighted to accept any interruptions that he cares to address to me. Quite frankly, I felt that there was a certain Alice in Wonderland quality about his speech which made me wonder whether, at the ripe old age of 36, my ears were beginning to deceive me. He started by referring to the third United Nations offensive, the third time the United Nations had committed aggression in Katanga since the operations started. He was kind enough to allow me about 15 seconds in which to put a question to him in the course of his speech. I asked whom he thought had started the fighting this Christmas. He said that the Katangese forces had probably started it.
Early last month I spent about 10 days in the Congo. I had the opportunity of speaking to a variety of people both


in Elisabethville and Leopoldville. I stayed in Elisabethville in a guest house which belonged to the Union Minière. Therefore, I had the opportunity to speak to many people and. I found only one person out of approximately 50—

Mr. P. Williams: My hon. Friend would have found a "Katanga lobby" there.

Mr. Berkeley: I prefer to avoid slogans and try to get down to some of the facts.
I found, out of about 40 or 50 of whom I asked the question, "How and why did the fighting start?" only one who alleged that the fighting started on the United Nations side. It seems to be recognised by British, Belgian, American, French and United Nations sources that the fighting started on the Katanga side. In fact, I travelled in a helicopter which earlier and without any provocation had been shot down by Katanga forces and an Indian officer and an Indian soldier lost their lives.
For my hon. Friend to talk about a third United Nations offensive is totally inaccurate. I do not think that anyone who has been to that area in the last month could accept it. After all, an offensive can start only if it is planned, and there can be no doubt that the firing started, and was sustained for some time, from the side of the Katangan gendarmerie. My hon, Friend is obviously dying to interrupt me and I will now extend to him the courtesy which he was not prepared to extend to me.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The hon. Gentleman has said that I allowed him to interrupt me. He has challenged me and so I respond to his challenge. I think that there was a prepared offensive, although I concede that in a state of great tension between the two sides it looked as if the first shot might have been fired from the Katanga side. There was an incident and from that an offensive proceeded.

Mr. Berkeley: My hon. Friend is simplifying the position. It was not just a question of one shot but about nine hours of sustained firing.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: An incident.

Mr. Berkeley: I do not think that nine hours of sustained firing can be described as an incident. There were at least 10

United Nations soldiers injured and two were killed. That I regard as being more than either a shot or an incident. In those circumsances it seems to me totally inaccurate to talk about the United Nations starting an offensive.
The next point made by my hon. Friend was that the United Nations has destroyed a State. I think that that was the word he used.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: It attempted to.

Mr. Berkeley: It attempted to. That does not make much difference. I wonder by what definition my hon. Friend arrives at the word "State" in relation to Katanga.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: By the definition of "State" in the new Constitution which was prepared, and in which the provinces of the former Belgian Congo are described as "States".

Mr. Berkeley: On the contrary. The United Nations has made perfectly plain that at no stage was it prepared to impose conditions of reintegration on Katanga. It regards itself as the instrument of a legitimate central Government of the Congo, and therefore, I think, would regard itself as under an obligation to intervene to prevent a totally unconstitutional secession. But when my hon. Friend talks about the destruction of a State, if he is merely substituting the word "State" for a province, he must remember that throughout the United Nations authorities have recognised the position of Mr. Tshombe as the provincial President of the Katanga Province. If he was broadening that definition—as I assumed he was—to take account of the possibility of Katanga secession altogether from any kind of Congolese Federation, I would say that I cannot see by what democratic process Mr. Tshombe claims any kind of mandate to fulfil these aims. In fact, in the elections of 1960, immediately before the granting of Congolese independence, his Conakat Party got 91,000 votes, as opposed to 135,000 votes which went to opposition parties.
Mr. Tshombe's party never had more than a minority of the seats in the Katanga Provincial Assembly. The issue of secession had never been overtly raised in the elections of 1960 and therefore, to equate, as my hon. Friend


and some of his hon. Friends have done, the position in Katanga with the position in Nyasaland—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I did not do that.

Mr. Berkeley: I know that my hon. Friend did not do it, but some of his hon. Friends did, including, I think, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams). Incidentally, it is curious that my hon. Friends should feel so strongly about the right of Nyasaland to secession, because I can remember that about a year ago they were signing Motions deeply deploring any possibility of bringing the Central African Federation to an end. But now, apparently, Nyasaland secession is absolutely right and the principle should be applied to Katanga.
Let us see what comparability there is in the case of Nyasaland. Dr. Banda fought his election in 1961 and got 99 per cent. of the votes. The principal if not the only platform of his party was to take Nyasaland out of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. His principal objection to that Federation was not that of a political association between the Territories, but the subjection of Nyasaland to a Federal Government which rested upon only 11,000 European votes. I am not discussing whether Dr. Banda was right or wrong. I am merely saying that, this was the issue upon which he fought the election and on which he obtained 99 per cent. of the votes of the people of Nyasaland.
As we have seen, Mr. Tshombe, on the other hand, got approximately one-third of the votes in Katanga, substantially less than half the seats, and at no stage in his election campaign was secession ever even mentioned. So how is this mandate for Katangan independence to be justified and compared with Nyasaland? The answer, of course, is that there is no comparability whatsoever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell talked about Mr. Tshombe having achieved a situation of peace and quiet in Katanga which was interrupted only by the intrusion of United Nations forces. He also referred to recent events in Elisabethville as having brought that city almost to the state of affairs which existed in Budapest. I think that Buda-

pest was the actual description which my hon. Friend gave. A few weeks ago I spent three or four nights in Elisabethville, and I must confess that Welwyn Garden City would, to me, have been a more appropriate description than Budapest. Certainly there were no signs of destruction visible.
I stayed with people who, on the whole, were most likely to be prejudiced against the United Nations. Most of them were deeply prejudiced and perhaps they had reason to be. But I heard only one specific allegation of atrocities, and I will come to the question of atrocities in a few moments. My hon. Friend talks about this oasis of peace and quiet—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I did not say that.

Mr. Berkeley: My hon. Friend did talk about the peace and quiet which existed under Mr. Tshombe which was interrupted by the intrusion of the United Nations. When he talks about this I think it would be helpful for us to remember that of the many atrocities committed throughout the Congo none have been worse than the atrocities against the Balubas in the northern part of Katanga by President Tshombe and his mercenaries.
People in our embassy at Leopoldville estimate that about 10,000 people have probably lost their lives as a result of these operations. I spent a day flying over certain parts of Northern Katanga in a helicopter and I saw village after village which had been razed to the ground, where there was no sign of visible habitation now, although they were plainly sizeable centres of population a year or two ago. It should be borne in mind that considerable violence and considerable atrocities have been committed by Mr. Tshombe and his mercenaries, and this is the answer to those who speak in terms of the peace and quiet which the United Nations are alleged to have upset.

Mr. P. Williams: I hope that my hon. friend can help me on a point of information. The right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) to adduce some evidence in support of his view, and my hon. Friend stated two points. I do not


at this moment see the connection, although there may be one, between there being villages razed to the ground, which my hon. Friend has obviously observed and which we must therefore accept as a fact, and the accusation that this was carried out by Tshombe's forces. At the moment these are two uncorrelated facts.

Mr. Berkeley: When I was in both Elisabethville and Leopoldville I was given certain accounts from people, including people in our own diplomatic missions there, which indicated to me that sizeable casualties have been incurred as a result of Tshombe's activities with his mercenaries in trying to bring about the subordination of the Balubas in Northern Katanga. I had visual evidence of sizeable destruction, which indicated to me that there probably had been sizeable casualties. These are matters which I would certainly accept should be investigated along with the many allegations which have been made about the United Nations Forces.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion talked about Mr. Tshombe being maltreated and his ankles being so swollen that he did not know what to do, and all the rest of it. We must not forget that Mr. Lumumba perished at Mr. Tshombe's hands, which indicates to me that trial by jury is probably not practised very much or was not practised very much in the Province of Katanga. We must not forget that Mr. Brian Urquhart and Mr. George Ivan Smith were both beaten up, one of them very badly indeed, by Mr. Tshombe's gendarmerie, which indicates to me that probably the rule of law was not applied in the Province of Katanga in exactly the same way as it might be in Piccadilly Circus or the Palace of Westminster.
We must not forget either that there have always been a large number of political prisoners in Katanga. These are the people who have been in jail for considerable periods without trial under President Tshombe's Government. Therefore, again the fine flower of democracy has not flourished quite so well in the Province of Katanga as it has elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell spoke about the atrocities which we have all seen on television. I imagine that he was referring to the tragic case

of two Belgian women who were shot by United Nations troops on their entry into Jadotville. I took particular care while I was in Katanga to inquire into this terrible incident, and I was fortunate enough to have a personal interview with Mr. Van Breughel, the driver of the car concerned. I was anxious to do this first, because by any standards this incident was a tragic accident of war and, as portrayed by certain sections of the Press and, I am told, by some of the television companies, it appeared to be an act of brutal inhumanity carried out by United Nations forces.
I accompanied Brigadier Norona to Jadotville. He is the Indian Brigade commander of the United Nations forces in the Congo. Incidentally, he was a major in the Indian Army during the war and won a Military Cross in Burma in 1942, and another one in 1944. I had the opportunity of speaking to many of the officers and men in this splendid brigade, a brigade which made one feel tremendously proud of the contribution which Britain has made towards the Indian Army. The brigade includes not only the brigadier but six other officers and men who hold the Military Cross and two who hold the Victoria Cross. I believe that they are the finest troops in the Congo.
I was taken by the brigadier to the scene of the incident. I also had the opportunity of a talk with Mr. Van Breughel. I have no doubt whatsoever, both on the evidence of Brigadier Norona and also on the evidence of Mr. Van Breughel, whom I saw in private without any United Nations officer being present, that what happened was that the Indian troops were advancing on Jadotville; a van travelling at about 45 miles an hour came towards them and was waved to stop; the van ignored the instructions and drove through; it was shot at and got away. The Volkswagen driven by Mr. Van Breughel, which as hon. Members know is a covered car, so it is very difficult to see what is inside, was corning along behind at about the same speed. It slowed down when a signal was made to it to stop. When the driver saw the van smash its way through, he suddenly accelerated. At this point the United United Nations troops fired.
I specifically asked the question of Mr. Van Breughel, because this seemed to be


crucial, "Did you see a signal being given to you to stop?" He replied, "I saw troops waving at me, but I thought they were waving a friendly greeting and not waving at me to stop". This is what he says. I do not believe that any person taking reasonable precautions could assume that troops advancing in a military operation have time to wave friendly greetings at oncoming cars. However, my conversation with Mr. Van Breughel at least established the fact, which the Indians made to me beforehand, that they had made every effort to stop the car, the car had in fact slowed down to stop, and then when it accelerated they fired. This has become a tragic accident of war. I do not believe that any troops under any command anywhere else would have behaved differently, not even British troops. It is very important that the good name of the Indian troops in Jadotville should be cleared in this way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion, who has now left the chamber, made use of the term "mercenary". I should not have thought that it required a terribly subtle mind to see the essential difference between an Indian Brigade or a Ghananian battalion or a Tunisian battalion or a Sierra Leone company placed at the service of the United Nations by the Government of the country concerned and mercenaries. All the officers in these commands are under the orders of their own Government and they are attached to a United Nations operation as a result of a decision of that Government. The position was precisely the same in Korea.
I am glad that my hon. Friend has now returned, because I do not think it will require a terribly subtle mind to see that there is an essential difference between troops of that kind and people who are really piratical adventurers They are people who went on contract terms to join the illegally constituted gendarmerie of a province in rebellion. I should have thought that by any standards there is clearly an essential difference between the two.
Perhaps some of Mr. Tshombe's mercenaries were men of the highest character—I do not know—but here is no doubt that some were men with a very dubious past. To try to relate them to officers serving with their own troops on the

orders of their Governments in a United Nations operation is not terribly helpful nor is it accurate.

Sir W. Teeling: I must apologise for not having been present but I had to listen to something upstairs.
I think that it is the Swedish Government who are employing troops only for this purpose, because Sweden is a neutral nation and does not have forces for any other purpose. I have had a letter from the Swedish Military Attaché saying that the Swedish troops sent to the Congo have been specially recruited for that purpose. Surely no one will suggest that the Ethiopian troops in the Congo are any better than some of the very good, worthwhile people from the ordinary parts of Europe who have gone there on Katanga's side. Katanga is not a province in rebellion. It is a federal part of the Congo. There is no rebellion about it whatever.

Mr. Berkeley: The question of rebellion is a matter of international law. My view is that it is rebellion. Nor was I discussing the worth of an Ethiopian officer as compared with that of a Katangan mercenary. All I was saying was that it was not very subtle of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion, to pretend that there is no difference between the two.

Sir W. Teeling: There is not.

Mr. Berkeley: There is. Whether or not an Ethiopian officer is a good officer or a bad officer, he is an officer in his national army and his Government, at the request of the United Nations, have sent his unit to be used for United Nations purposes in the Congo. His rôle in the Congo is not incomparable—whatever he may be like as a person—with the rôle of a British Army officer under the United Nations command in the Korean War. It is exactly comparable in status.

Sir W. Teeling: What about the Swedes?

Mr. Berkeley: Their position is exactly the same. At the invitation of the Secretary-General, the Swedish Government have made available certain units of their army for use in the Congo. Even if the most splendid man of the highest moral character is personally enrolled as a mercenary in Mr. Tshombe's illegal gendarmerie, his status is entirely different.


He is under contract. He is, therefore, in defiance of about six United Nations resolutions and is in Katanga illegally because Mr. Tshombe, as a provincial president, has no right whatever to have his own gendarmerie independent of the central Government. There is thus a quite clear difference in status, whatever the character of the people may be.
I accept that there have been mistakes by the United Nations. I doubt whether Dr. O'Brien was exactly the right man to have in Elisabethville in September, 1961. But I believe that Brigadier Norona and General Prem Chand were exactly the right people to have there in December, 1962. In any operation of this kind one is dependent upon personalities, and military commanders—and even Governments, as my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows—make mistakes from time to time.
It is not entirely surprising that, in operations lasting two and a half years, occasional errors of judgment are made. But essentially all that the United Nations Command has done is to carry out its mandate, and I should like to know when my hon. Friends think that this mandate has been exceeded. In the view of the United Nations, Mr. Tshombe is a validly elected provincial president of a provincial administration.
I have with me a 20-franc note with Mr. Tshombe's head on it. I hope it will enrich me in my old age. But clearly the issue of currency is beyond the power of the ordinary provincial president. So is the recruitment of his own private army. These things go far beyond the right of any provincial president, and Mr. Tshombe clearly became in rebellion against the central Government.
To that extent, because the United Nations was invited in by the central Government to maintain law and order throughout the Congo after the removal of Belgian troops, I think that it is wholly within the United Nations mandate to have taken military action there.

Sir W. Wakefield: What my hon. Friend is saying is that the United Nations is there to interfere in the internal affairs of another State. Surely if this large area of the Congo wishes to be independent and to secede it should be allowed to do so. What right has the United Nations to interfere in the affairs of this large territory?

Mr. Berkeley: I am happy to try to answer. It is this kind of mental confusion that has led to so many erroneous statements. In the first place, the United Nations went to the Congo at the invitation of the validly elected central Government.

Sir W. Teeing: indicated dissent.

Mr. Berkeley: It is no good my hon. Friend spluttering. That was the case. We all know how, within a few weeks, the central Government disintegrated, but after over a year of very patient negotiation—particularly by Mr. Robert Gardner, the Ghanaian who is now in charge—a new central Government has been formed. Here I wish to say that Mr. Gardner has done a splendid job and great tribute should be paid to him.

Sir W. Teeling: He is against Dr. Nkrumah.

Mr. Berkeley: That is beside the point. We are talking about him as a United Nations servant. A valid central Government has been formed under Mr. Adoula. That is a great achievement of the United Nations, considering that within a few weeks of its entry into the Congo there was a break-away government in Stanleyville headed by Mr. Gizenga, another under Mr. Kilongi, in Kasai, separate régimes under Lumumba and Ileo and also the Mobutu régime and the Katangan break-away. There was absolute chaos, but after very patient negotiations the Congo has a central Government whose writ now runs throughout the country, the only province remaining outside being Katanga.
Mr. Tshombe could have come to terms on any reasonable basis if he had beer, prepared to do so in August, 1961, before the Adoula regime was formed. I cannot help feeling that one of the effects of our somewhat ambivalent policy in the Congo has been to encourage Mr. Tshombe in his view that his secessionist aim was feasible and durable.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend appears to be arguing that it is wrong for someone to have cesessionist aims. Why does not he apply that to Nyasaland?

Mr. Berkeley: I am not saying that it is wrong. But it is wrong illegally to declare the secession of a province when one only has one-third of the votes and substantially less than half the seats in the


Assembly, particularly when one really represents only a small tribal alliance centred round the greater part of the mineral wealth of the entire Congo. There is no democracy in that, and I believe—and certainly the figures in 1960 show this—that the majority vote in Katanga at that time was not either in favour of Mr. Tshombe or in favour of secession. Indeed, the Belgian Parliament had to pass a special amendment to make it possible for Mr. Tshombe's minority Government to come into power.
I believe that the United Nations Organisation's position in legal terms is a strong one. I had the opportunity while in Elisabethville and Leopoldville of talking with the American Ambassador and members of his staff. It is their view—a view which I think is probable—that had the Americans not given backing to the United Nations operation in the last few weeks, the Adoula Government would have fallen and, had that happened, we should have had the real possibility of a Gizengist secessionist government in Stanleyville, with General Mobutu controlling a small area around Leopoldville as a pro-western government and a breakaway in Kasai. One could have had in the Congo, had the United Nations not intervened, a complete repetition of the cold war position in Indo-China, which has caused so much trouble in that part of the world.
It must be nonsensical at a time when for once the long-term interests of the West and the emotional interests of Afro-Asian nationalism coincided to oppose this policy. I believe that it was opposed and blocked only by Mr. Khrushchev and President de Gaulle. I believe that we should realise, too, that our long-term interests did lie and still do lie with the maintenance of the authority of the central Government. What we have done—and I know that our voting record in the United Nations is good on the whole, that our private advice was probably less good and that the effect it has had was even less good—by helping to maintain the dubious rights of Mr. Tshombe is to have lost the good will of an entire continent.
If any of my hon. Friends dispute that statement let them go to Nigeria, Tanganyika, Ghana or Sierra Leone and see what our friends there have to say

about our attitude in the Congo. Let them talk to the Malayans, Indians, Canadians or Irish who have been involved in the Congo operation and see what they think of our attitude there.
If Mr. Tshombe really deserved this great reputation and was so tremendously pro-West—a great bastion of Western civilisation—perhaps the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, could tell me why it was that he put himself in the extraordinary position of sending his Members of Parliament to Leopoldville—although he thought that he was independent—to vote; and why they engaged in a coalition with Mr. Gizenga's supporters to bring down Mr. Adoula's Government? The answer is because Mr. Tshombe would not mind paying the price of a Communist government in Stanleyville if he could get the loot in the southern part of Katanga and maintain himself undisturbed by outside intervention. That is what he was playing for.
If my hon. Friend can tell me that opportunism on that majestic scale is the sort of policy we should support, I can only say that I believe this to be entirely wrong. I believe, further, that the British Government's overt attitude was right. Of course it was right that Katanga should be reintegrated with the Congo. Of course it was right that we should seek a federal type of government—and the Belgians should have made an attempt to work that out before they made that disastrous rush towards independence in 1960.
However, we should have recognised at least 18 months ago that it simply was not tenable to say that while we wanted to see Katanga reunited with the Congo, we were not prepared to do anything to bring it about. President Tshombe personally signed no fewer than five agreements in which he committed Katanga to reunification of one kind or another with the Congo, but he has shown no disposition to put them into practice. In the end, I believe that action was necessary. I am thankful that it was taken and I hope that the Government will now give their firm support to the United Nations for what it has done.

6.25 p.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson: I rise to support the opposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) to the buying of United


Nations bonds. I do so for two reasons. The first is the moral case which my hon. Friend stated so ably and about which the Joint-Under Secretary will recall I raised an Adjournment debate on 2nd March last year. The second is on the basis of the slogan which is familiar on the other side of the Atlantic, "No taxation without representation," which does not seem to have found the same acceptance on the East River as it once did in Boston Harbour.
We pay the highest tribute to the aspirations of the United Nations. The ideals which it represents, its humanitarian mission in the sphere of health and education throughout the world demands the highest tribute. Here, indeed, is the virtuous Dr. Jekyll, whom we can all admire. However, we are all too aware that there is another, alternative, side to human nature. A change has taken place in the political sphere of the United Nations, making it a body which is clearly motivated by anti-colonialistic spite, Afro-Asian vindictiveness and the neo-imperialism of the United States. That represents the other face. It is the face of the wicked Mr. Hyde, of whose activities we are unfortunately the natural victims.
I submit that the average man in Britain is bewildered and apprehensive about what is happening in the United Nations. I was attracted by the challenge thrown out by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson) when he mentioned a number of my hon. Friends and myself having marginal constituencies. Whether or not he is to lead his party, I hope that he will come to my constituency at the next General Election and tell the electors that he wishes to increase the amount of money, as he has said, for the purpose of keeping Ethiopian troops in the Congo. Although the right hon. Member for Huyton is not in his place, I trust that these words will find their way to him and that he will accept this acceptance of his challenge.
One does not have to be a shareholder of Tanganyika Concessions or be associated with Union Miniere to feel alarmed at recent United Nations action. Though I am totally unacquainted with either of these bodies I must say that when I reflect on these matters after reading the numerous

attacks on them, I associate them with the well-known French saying:
Cet animal est méchant. Quand on l'attaque, il se défend.
That seems to me very much to describe the position in which these people have found themselves.
There are two things which cause me particular concern and which have really occasioned my intervention today. My brief on this subject will be narrower than that of previous speakers. The first is the organisation of the United Nations. It is interesting in these large institutions, both international or here at home, to find out where the power exactly lies in their working. It is a fascinating game for those interested—a sort of cherchez la femme, or spot the lady. Originally, the power lay with the Security Council, but it does not lie with the Security Council any more, because in answer to Questions my hon. Friend has told me that there have been 70 meetings of the Security Council over the past fifteen months or so at which the Congo has not been discussed at all.
We have been told that the power has apparently passed in a somewhat vague way to the Assembly and the Secretary-General. If we had to content ourselves with that statement we would still not feel very much further forward, but we owe it to an historical accident that we have a little more information. The historical accident is that we had a literary man in charge of the operations in the Congo. Being to some extent in the business myself, I should not entirely denigrate the efforts of a literary man in politics. But even my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) did not consider Dr. Conor O'Brien as a latter-day Napoleon.
Nevertheless, Dr. O'Brien has written an excellent book on the subject, and the most important thing in his book is his analysis of the power structure of the United Nations. In relation to the Congo, he tells us that the power lay with what he happily called the "Katanga Club", which was a cabal of the Secretary-General and three American citizens on, I think, the 37th floor of the United Nations building who, in effect, from the inception of the intervention, took all the effective decisions on the Congo.
I pass from cause to effect, about which we have heard much in this debate. It


was the matter of what I will call the second intervention that I raised in the Adjournment debate of 2nd March last year. I have to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for information in his reply about the discipline of United Nations troops, and I cannot help thinking that some of the interveners on the other side of the House had not seen the report of that Adjournment debate before speaking today.
On this question of discipline and the inquiry, my hon. Friend gave some very full answers, and made it clear, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster today, that the commander of the United Nations forces has military command of those forces, but no power to court-martial—no power of discipline. Then, having spoken about the lack of United Nations civilian control over the military, my hon. Friend said, as he will himself remember:
I do not want to give the impression that the Government have heard with equanimity the various allegations made, that we have adopted the attitude of Pilate.
Despite what has been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), the previous atrocities were fully admitted.
My hon. Friend went on to say:
On the contrary, our disquiet at the reports which have reached us, both in September, 1961, and in December, 1961, have repeatedly been brought to the attention of the United Nations.
I do not in any way doubt that that was a fully honest assurance, but those representations must have been entirely ineffective. Though we are subscribing to these bonds, apparently no one in this building on the East River listens to what we say because, we have had the identical type of maltreatment and atrocity against a civilian population in circumstances similar to those which led to my previous protest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster talked about one incident as though it were the only one, but there were others. He will have seen the letter in the Daily Telegraph on Monday from a M. Dister, writing from Belgium, alleging that his wife was shot in front of him by Ethiopian troops. So there have been further incidents of just the kind that I raised in that Adjournment debate.
Whatever point of view we may have about Mr. Tshombe or Mr. Lumumba,

we all appear to want this matter to be investigated. Unfortunately, in that Adjournment debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary stated that
… much as we deplore some of the events which have occurred in Katanga … Her Majesty's Government do not believe that it would be useful to call for a general inquiry into the events of September, 1961, and December, 1961."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 2nd March, 1961; Vol. 654 c, 1804–15.]
I therefore support my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell, in whatever he does in this matter, because I want to hear the Under-Secretary reverse that decision, and so let us have an investigation on all sides.
We have had history quoted throughout this debate, and I must say that history has been very much in my own mind as I have thought and read about these matters. It is, of course, the history of our own civilisation in Europe. It is all very well for troops to be under national command when the command is that of a nation that has hundreds of years of civilisation behind it, and has a proper code and proper discipline for its troops, who are themselves naturally humanitarian and kindly people.
It is a very different matter with nations which do not have that advantage. Indeed, the system of whistling contingents of troops from whatever authority is willing to provide them reminds one of only one thing, and that is the condition in Europe in the Middle Ages. This is exactly what happened in a previous stage of the development of our civilisation. This king or that prince was asked to provide a number of troops, who then ranged wide throughout the countryside at will.
We have gone further than that in our organisation in Europe by several hundred years. These were times which we thought we had forgotten. But the revival of this system—this system of calling on these loosely controlled and undisciplined agents is putting the clock back. One fears that unless something is done and a proper investigation is made, that unless this whole system of control is tightened up, and unless we in this country have more say in the matter, which we earn by the way we pay for it, we are not going forward with the United Nations. We are putting the clock back by centuries. This is why I oppose the voting of the money for the purchase of United Nations bonds.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): I am prompted to intervene in the debate mainly by the speech by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), which seemed to me to have a degree of personal abuse against my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) which was quite offensive and unacceptable.
I am comparatively new to the House, but I always thought that it was essential to its smooth running and, indeed, to its dignity, that we should all accept that those hon. Members who hold views different from our own hold them with the same honesty, conviction, sincerity and depth of feeling as we hold our own. I therefore deplore that type of speech and hope that we shall not hear too many of them in future.
I also resent the suggestion which is made from the benches opposite that those of us on this side of the House who speak in support of Mr. Tshombe are members of a mysterious Katanga "lobby" and have a sinister and secret interest in Katanga. I want to make it clear that the only interest I have in this matter is to try to see justice done.
The right hon. Member for Huyton made, as many hon. Members have made today, some sweeping statements without producing any evidence to support them—from Portuguese oppression in Africa, without any evidence to support it, to Mr. Tshombe's not having support in his own country. And the only evidence offered for that was a letter mentioned by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), written by six chiefs. People should try to be a dittle more moderate in their statements when discussing matters of this kind.
This gives me the opportunity to express my own dismay and disgust at the action which has been carried out in the name of the United Nations in Katanga. Whatever hon. Members may say, it is quite impossible to accept any view other than that the United Nations has behaved in a manner in complete contravention of its own Charter. It is not fair for those who do not share my view and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell to say that we are against the United Nations and do not support the Charter and its meaning. Those of us who protest today do so

because we feel great concern that the Charter might disappear in the background and that instead of it we shall see the rule of violence and force, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) seemed to welcome.

Mr. Berkeley: My hon. Friend must apply to me the same standards as those he was asking the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson) to apply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), that is to say, he must assume good faith and must not assume that I or that anybody else is in favour of breaking law and order or in favour of violence.

Mr. Goodhew: I must apologise to my hon. Friend if he thinks that I was accusing him of dishonesty in any way, but he said at the end of his speech that he welcomed the United Nations intervention and its result. To me, that meant that he welcomed the use of force to enforce a political solution in Katanga. I am sorry if I did not say that at the outset. I hope that my hon. Friend now understands that I was not accusing him of dishonesty, but merely doubting the wisdom of his views.
It is easy for people to talk about the responsibility for the outbreak of fighting in Katanga. When people say that the Katangese were the first to fire I would remind them that there is such a charge in English law as causing a breach of the peace. It is possible to rouse somebody to violent action by one's own action. When my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster said that there was no plan for this offensive in Katanga he was quite wrong. The details of an offensive were known to some hon. Members here some weeks before. It was known that the plan was to capture Elisabethville, Jadotville, Kolwezi and Kipushi and that the excuse would be that this was to procure freedom of movement for United Nations troops.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell and I made representations to the Government to warn them of this. All the United Nations troops had to do was to provoke an incident in which the Katangese Army fired the first shot so that they could carry out plans which had been prepared for some time. I wonder whether those who support United Nations action so wholeheartedly


understand what could happen in Africa as a result of this.
It is a fact that the central Congolese Government run a school for terrorists at Thaisville near Leopoldville, where they are trained to carry out terrorist actions in Angola. They make no secret of it. The terrorists arrested during the so-called uprising in Angola were found to be French-speaking Africans and not Portuguese-speaking, which tended to bear out that they had been trained for some time in the Congo.
If this is to happen, where will it end? When they have produced chaos in Angola, as they may do, are they going to move into Northern Rhodesia, Mozambique and Southern Rhodesia? There are people in Africa who want to see complete chaos in those parts of Africa, and when the chaos comes it is the ordinary Africans living in these territories who will suffer the misery and unpleasantness of it.
Hon. Members should not try to make out that when we are criticising United Nations action we are doing so because we want to protect European rights alone. We must understand that there are greater implications to this whole episode than merely the suppression of President Tshombe, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government will be watching this very closely, because it seems to me that we can contemplate the whole future outlook in Africa with the gravest anxiety.
On the particular subject of the bonds, I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary can answer an important question. I understand that they are redeemable bonds. This presumably assumes that at a later date funds will be available with which to redeem them. I should like to know where those funds are to come from. Normally, when there are redeemable bonds there is some concern which has assets and sources of income from which it can accumulate funds to redeem them. It does not seem sensible if we are to be asked for these millions of pounds today to buy bonds and then asked later to accept other redeemable bonds in repayment of them and so say goodbye to those millions of pounds which will have gone down the drain.
Unless a really satisfactory answer can be given on this subject I must express complete support of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell, who is opposed to the whole idea of Britain taking up these bonds.

6.49 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone): We are discussing tonight a financial contribution to the United Nations. We are doing that because of the bankruptcy of the organisation. Why is the United Nations bankrupt? it seems to me that there are two major reasons. One is because of the costly operations in the Congo and the other because of the failure of certain countries to make the financial contributions which they are required to make under the Charter.
The whole question of Katanga has been very fully discussed tonight and I do not want to say any more about it now. What I wish to stress for a few minutes is that there is considerable anxiety in the country about taxpayers' money being contributed to the United Nations to bolster up that organisation because of the failure of other countries to make their payments. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that other countries are making the payments which they ought to make?
Earlier in the debate, in reply to an intervention by me, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) pointed out that there were in the Charter rules governing the failure by countries to make financial contributions. What is the present position? How many countries have defaulted? When they default, are they stopped from taking part and voting in the proceedings of the United Nations? What is happening? What action are the Government taking, or have they taken, to ensure that these countries do make their contributions in due course?
Will these redeemable bonds be repayable when, if ever, other countries pay up? What action is the Government pay up? What action are the Government taking to try to ensure that the requirements of the Charter are fulfilled and that these other countries, if they do to participate and vote?
If we are to contribute through these bonds, other countries may just say that, since the United States, the United Kingdom and certain others are willing to


"cough up" and go on "coughing up" extra money, they will not make any payments at all. This is something we ought to know more about. Constituents have written to me about it. While fully supporting the United Nations and all it stands for, they feel quite strongly that it is wrong that we should make our contributions when other countries are failing to do so.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State would give us more information on these points than he has given so far to justify the substantial contribution which the taxpayer is required to make to bolster up the bankrupt United Nations.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. P. Thomas: If I may have the leave of the House, I should like to reply to some of the points which have been raised during the debate.
When I put shortly before the House the reasons why Her Majesty's Government asked it to vote the Supplementary Estimate, I had not expected that we should have such a very interesting debate, which has concentrated mainly on the United Nations activities in Katanga.
I have listened very carefully to all that has been said. At the outset, I say that, although I may disagree with much of what was said by several of my hon. Friends, I certainly cannot agree with the strictures passed by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on what was said by my hon. Friends, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison).
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) when he says that there is no doubt about the sincerity and conviction of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell and other hon. Members who have spoken in his support. I say that because my hon. Friend knows that Her Majesty's Government hold a slightly contrary view.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Slightly?

Mr. Thomas: A contrary view. I said that on a note of humour, and, therefore, lest there should be any misunderstanding, I will stay quite emphatically that our view, which is well known, is wholly different from that of my hon. Friend.
In reply to some of the questions I have been asked, I will say a few words about the United Nations activity in Katanga, but I know that the House will not wish me to speak at length about the whole Katanga operation. There has been a great division of view during the debate, not just a division between that side of the House and this but a division of view, very forcibly expressed, among my hon. Friends. Therefore, I do not think that I need do more than add a few words about the Government's attitude.
Our attitude was very forcibly expressed yesterday in another place by my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, so I need not say very much, apart from this. It is true, as the right hon. Member for Huyton and the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) said, that, when the United Nations went into the Congo, a chaotic situation existed. The United Nations representatives and forces went in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) said, at the invitation of the Central National Government.
The purpose of their intervention was to avoid conflict between the big Powers. There was the danger that big Powers might intervene in the Congo. Their purpose was to avoid the importation of the cold war into that part of Africa. We supported them in that purpose. Their role was to prevent civil and tribal war and to help the Congolese to settle and shape their own economic and political future. We supported them in that rôle.
It was quite apparent that there might be some occasion when force would have to be used. U Thant said that, in his view, the United Nations forces would be entitled to use force in three eventualities: one, in self-defence; two, f3r the prevention of civil war; three, for the removal of mercenaries. We supported the United Nations in that view of the eventualities which might result in the use of force.
It is only right to say—this is well known to the House—that we have had considerable misgivings about the interpretation of these three eventualities. In particular, we had misgivings about the interpretation that force could be used for a political settlement. I need not go into that. Our views are well known


and we have debated them in the House Her Majesty's Government have always recognised the central Government in Leopoldville as the Government of the Congo. We have hoped and worked for a settlement by consent because we knew that it was only such a settlement which could be permanent. That has been our policy.
It is not profitable at the moment for us to engage in a post mortem. I think that it is important at the moment for us to concentrate the whole of our energy behind U Thant's plan for reconciliation, and if it proves a success, as I hope it will, I would like to say that in large measure it will have been brought about because of the activities of our British consul during that very difficult time when the United Nations troops were moving into Jadotville and other towns just after Christmas.
I say that because of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton said. He said he would like to have an inquiry which would go into the instructions given to Her Majesty's consul in Elisabethville. I can tell the House that the instructions to Her Majesty's consul were consistently directed towards bringing Mr. Tshombe to accept the Secretary General's plan for national reconciliation in the Congo. Throughout that difficult period I think it is generally appreciated how important was his work in contacting Tshombe, and indeed the work of the Belgian consul.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell asked me certain questions. Perhaps I may deal, first, with the question he asked about the plan for national reconciliation. In our view, this plan continues to offer the best prospect for a lasting settlement based on agreement and cooperation between all the parties concerned. U Thant has confirmed that the plan is still valid and will remain in operation. Arrangements are now going on for the implementation of the monetary provisions of the plan and yesterday General Muke, commander of the Katanga gendarmerie, and a number of his officers took the oath or allegiance to President Kasavubu, in Leopoldville.
My hon. Friend also asked about refugees on the Northern Rhodesian border following the outbreak of hostilities at Katanga at the end of December.

It is true that a number of refugees made their way towards the Northern Rhodesian border. At one time I am informed their numbers amounted to several thousand, and up to 5,000 Africans crossed the border in the Kipushi area and remained there three or four days. They were self-contained and provided no problem from the point of view of food supplies or medical attention to the Rhodesian Government.
I am told that a further 10,000 stationed themselves along the Rhodesian-Katangan border. It appears many of these people were not true refugees fleeing from the results of military action but were rather awaiting developments in Katanga. I understand that the majority have now returned to their villages and homes. My hon. Friend asked me whether the United Nations refused assistance. I made inquiries and I have no information that they did, in fact, refuse assistance to refugees, but I understand that they assisted in the feeding of 20,000 Africans in Kafubu, a suburb of Elisabethville. They were all African refugees; there were no Europeans.
My hon. Friend also asked about the Security Council. I understand that the Secretary General sent a Report on 6th February to the Security Council on the latest phase of the United Nations operations on the Congo, and no doubt the Security Council will wish at some time to consider the Report.
As far as the British Government requesting a special meeting of the Security Council is concerned, it is our view that no useful purpose would be served by such a request. I feel the most constructive course now would be to bring together all the parties concerned for the implementation of the Secretary-General's conciliation plan. If a request was made for the matter to be discussed in the Security Council I think that there would be divisions, and now is not the time for divisions, and, in any event, I doubt very much whether support could be obtained for a discussion on the actions of the Secretariat.
The other question my hon. Friend asked was about the withdrawal of United Nations troops from Katanga. U Thant announced in New York on 29th January that the United Nations forces in the Congo would be progressively reduced


from the present total of 19,000 to about 12,000 by the end of March. He said that the emphasis of the United Nations in the Congo would now be switched to economic assistance, although the force would still have a rôle to play in preventing tribal warfare and preserving law and order. I know that the Secretary-General desires to concentrate the efforts of the United Nations on economic and technical assistance and I certainly hope that that desire can be fulfilled at the earliest possible moment.
Another matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell and other of my hon. Friends referred to is the question of an independent and impartial inquiry. Reference has been made to the Adjournment debates which I answered some months ago. The question of an independent inquiry into allegations of improper conduct on the part of United Nations troops during the events of December, 1961, was seriously considered at the time, when I answered the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson). It soon became clear, however, that there was very little chance of obtaining support to bring about such a general inquiry. Inquiries were held by the United Nations into specific accusations and we were assured at the time that any individuals found guilty had been punished.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle is quite right when he says there is a difficulty in that the chain of command is such that each national troop has its own national leaders, and investigations must be conducted by them. However, we have been informed that in most cases the culprits not only were punished but they were repatriated from the Congo. Meanwhile, I can assure the House that our permanent representative in New York has certainly brought to the notice of the United Nations Secretariat the views and the concern which have been expressed in this House.

Mr. A. Henderson: Would not a useful purpose be served if the United Nations Secretary General were able to publish the details of the investigations that are being made? Is there any reason why they should be kept secret?

Mr. Thomas: No, I think that it would be interesting if they were published, and that most people would support such a request.
Various things have been said about matters that occurred in the events that followed last Christmas. I do not wish to say anything about these, except to say that I am told a full investigation has been made in the United Nations into all these matters, but as far as I know no British subjects have suffered any loss or damage during this particular time.
My hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion and Carlisle asked about what is happening concerning compensation for British subjects as a result of the events which happened in December, 1961. All that I can tell them is that registration of losses by British or Commonwealth citizens who claim to have suffered injury or damage during the hostilities has continued and reports of all the incidents concerned have been under examination in London. As I say, I have received no reports that any British or Commonwealth subjects suffered harm during the recent fighting in Katanga.
Four cases resulting from the incidents of December, 1961, have been submitted to the United Nations' offices in Elisabethville, and I understand that these claims are still under examination by the United Nations authorities. Meanwhile, 42 forms, registering losses, have been received in London. I understand that two further forms are being submitted, but their arrival is still awaited by our Consul in Elisabethville. When all the forms have been received we will certainly do what we can to ensure that full reports are made and will decide which ones should be submitted to the Secretariat.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) mentioned the future financing of these matters in the United Nations. The proceeds of the bond issue are expected to keep the United Nations going at its present rate of expenditure until the end of April. The General Assembly endorsed by a very large majority the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the financing of the United Nations operation in the Middle East and the Congo, and the effect of this is to place beyond doubt the legal obligations of members to pay their


share of the cost of these operations as assessed by the General Assembly. As my hon. Friend knows, there was some doubt about that, or certainly some doubts were expressed, until the matter was determined by the International Court and adopted by the General Assembly.
In the same resolution the Assembly established a working group of 21 countries, including the United Kingdom, with the task of producing recommendations on future financing. A special session of the General Assembly will be held during the first half of 1963 to consider the report of the working group. The report of the working group is still under consideration and, therefore, I am not in a position to give further details.

Sir W. Wakefield: My hon. Friend has spoken about future financing, but can he give us any information about the failure of a number of countries to keep their payments up to date? The thing which is worrying people in this country is the fact that we are financing the failure of other countries to keep their payments up to date.

Mr. Thomas: I certainly accept that; what my hon. Friend says is perfectly right.
As I have said, the necessity for the issue of these bonds was the failure of many members of the United Nations to pay their subscriptions and because the United Nations was rapidly rushing towards bankruptcy. I think that it is right to say that no country was in arrears for more than two years at that time on its main subscriptions to the United Nations, but there were many countries which had not subscribed to the special operations.
The decision of the International Court, which has been endorsed by the General Assembly, brings the matter into a different perspective. This is a very important matter which will have to be considered, because if any country is in arrear for over two years I think that it is possible under Article 19 for that country to lose its vote.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans asked how the money would be returned. It is payable over a period of time. We have already received the first payment of principal and interest. As I have said, we have already bought the

bonds and the money came from the Civil Contingencies Fund. Therefore, in asking the House to vote this sum of money, the object is to put it back into the Civil Contingencies Fund.
The money will be paid at a small percentage over a period of 25 years. We hope that if all members of the United Nations make their full contributions, as they should—both their normal contributions and their contributions to the special operations—there will be no difficulty whatsoever in the United Nations being able to pay the money back.

Mr. Goodhew: How much of this repayment of capital and interest are we paying ourselves?

Mr. Thomas: I cannot answer that without notice, but I will certainly try to find out the answer and let my hon. Friend know what it is.
I apologise for having taken longer than I expected. As I say, the purpose of the bond issue is to save the United Nations from threatened bankruptcy. We felt that it was our duty to respond to this appeal because, whatever reservations we may have about certain aspects of the United Nations' policies, we consider it to he of paramount importance for the people of the world that the organisation should be viable and able to sustain the principles of the Charter. We therefore contributed to the bond issue to the best of our ability, taking into account our contributions to other United Nations' activities and the high level of our overseas aid commitment.
I ask the House to say that that was the proper thing to do and to support the expenditure of the money on the bonds.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that this bond issue is once-and-for-all?

Mr. Thomas: Yes. It is our intention that it shall be final.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I had no intention of intervening in the debate, but I think that I must put on record the fact that the tone and content of the Minister's reply to the attacks on the United Nations which have been made in this debate were profoundly disturbing to hon. Members on this side of the House.
We have listened to a series of the most highly-coloured and intemperate attacks on the United Nations that I have ever heard in this House. We have heard attacks about the moral bankruptcy of the United Nations. We have heard extremely contentious and, I should have thought, slanderous attacks on some of the actions of the United Nations' servants. We have been told that the United Nations has committed three acts of aggression in the Congo. We have had attacks on the United Nations ranging more broadly than over the Congo operation.
If the Government believed in the United Nations, I should have thought that we should have had a reply on behalf of the Government which asserted their belief in the United Nations and which strongly attacked the speeches made in this debate. Instead of that, the Minister began by saying, "We have had a very interesting debate" and by dissociating himself entirely from the strictures against the enemies of the United Nations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). He said, "I will not conceal the fact that the attitude of the Government is slightly different". It was only in response to protests from this side that he then said "somewhat different". In response to further protests from this side he said "wholly different". It needed the Opposition to make him do his duty.

Mr. P. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will want to be fair. I used the words "slightly different" in a humorous way. I thought that they might be misinterpreted, so I made the matter perfectly clear. Her Majesty's Government's view on this matter is perfectly clear, and we have given it to the House on many occasions. Today, in the course of the few words I said, I made clear that we did support United Nations. We are asking the House to vote money to support the United Nations.

Mr. Mayhew: I am very glad that, prompted by the Opposition, the Minister should have made clear that he wholly differs from his hon. Friends below the Gangway. I should have thought that It would have come better in a more striking and convincing tone of voice with perhaps a little support for the one member of his party who did support the United Nations in, if I may say so, a

most admirable speech, extremely well-informed from first-hand knowledge.
If the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) were the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the prestige of the Government would rise not only in this country but perhaps in some of the countries where, as he rightly said, the Government have lost a great deal of good will and prestige for Britain by their action in the Congo crisis. I should like simply to place on record our view that the tone and content of the Minister's reply seemed wholly inadequate.
We entirely dissociate ourselves from the vicious attacks made on the United Nations by hon. Members opposite and very much regret that, as it seems, these attacks should have had more influence on Government policy and appear to be taken a great deal more seriously by the Government Front Bench than they deserve. We believe that it is in the interests of the country that we should support the United Nations. We greatly regret that Her Majesty's Government have not made their position clear on this occasion.

Education

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter): I understand that it would now be for the convenience of the House if we passed from the United Nations to that aspect of the Bill which is related to the Supplementary Estimate for universities and colleges. I understand that under the rules of order I am limited to explaining the contents of this particular Supplementary Estimate and to explaining why more money is required under two subheads during the current year for universities.
This is the second Supplementary Estimate under Class 7, Vote 1, Universities and Colleges, and if I may, within the rules of order, remind the House, the original provision under this Vote was for £78,504,000. The earlier Supplementary Estimate which was accepted was for £5,819,000 and the extra provision shown in the present Supplementary Estimate is for £5,880,000, taking the total under the Vote to £90,203,000.
It might avoid misunderstanding if I made it clear that although this will be the total if Parliament approves this Bill it is not, of course, the total provision made from public sources during the


current year for universities as there is another £30 million or so by way of student grants carried on Votes of Education Departments and estimates of local authorities.
The present proposals are in two parts, a small provision under Subhead A of about £80,000 for additional recurrent expenditure and the larger one for £5,800,000 under Subhead B in respect of capital expenditure. If I may take the small one first, the House may recall that on 26th July, in reply to a Question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey), I stated that the Government had accepted a recommendation of the University Grants Committee in respect of the provision for additional medical students, in view of the changed appreciation of the number of doctors that would be required in the future.
The U.G.C. was asked to consider what additional provision would be needed for this purpose. The Committee recommended that in the first full academic year a further provision of £135,000 would be required. The sum of £80,000 is the likely amount to be spent for this purpose in the current financial year and, therefore, is the amount included under Subhead A,of this Supplementary Estimate.
The substantial item, of course, is that under Subhead B, £5,800,000, and that comes on top of an original provision under the subhead in the main Estimate of some £27 million. This total of £5,800,000 is concerned with four items. An amount of £2 million is in respect of building. This is almost entirely due to quicker progress being made with building work which, therefore, has to be paid for earlier.
Perhaps by way of illustration I may give one or two examples of how this has worked out. Taking stage 1 of the School of Chemistry, at Bristol, it was estimated that of the total expenditure on this of £600,000 we should spend about £200,000 in the present financial year. In fact, such good progress has been made that up to 31st December last there had already been paid for by the universities, and, therefore, paid in grant, about £301,500.
To give another example, on stage 1 of the Humanities Building at Manchester University it was estimated that we should

spend £70,000 in the current financial year, but up to the end of the last calendar year, £109,825 had been spent. Then, as I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Emery) is here, he may be interested to know that on the new Chemistry Building at Reading University we estimated that we should spend £100,000 in the current financial year, but, in fact, up to 31st December, £154,155 had been spent.
I do not want to weary the House with examples which include, I am glad to say—because I am a great believer in their provision—more rapid progress on Halls of Residence in certain universities. I think that the House will agree that the state of affairs which this discloses is excellent. It means that universities have made better progress with their building than we have been able to expect, which is a good thing in itself in view of the heavy calls ahead of them; and it also means from the point of view of the national economy that we are using labour and resources which are available on this excellent purpose at an accelerated rate.
We must remember that on 24th January the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) suggested to me that we ought to see that university building was speeded up in present conditions of employment. I think that the presentation of this Supplementary Estimate shows, if I may say so in the absence of the hon. Gentleman, that great minds think alike.
The second item, and the biggest of all, is in respect of equipment, mainly scientific equipment and furniture, for which the figure is £2,700,000. That, again, results from equipment coming forward quicker than had been anticipated, with the universities getting on with the ordering of it and firms getting ahead with deliveries quicker than had been expected. Some very big items are included here because, as we know, the scientific equipment going into the universities is very elaborate and, consequently, very expensive. If I may take an example, part of the provision here is towards that for the Electrical Engineering Department of Imperial College, on which, overall, £500,000 is being spent, about £123,000 of it in this Estimate; and Engineering, stages 1 and 2 of the development at Manchester University involves £420,000, £128,000 of it in this Estimate.
The remaining two items in the subhead are £300,000 in respect of professional fees—fees of architects, civil engineers, designers, planners, and so on; and £800,000 in respect of purchase of sites. These last two items, of course, relate to the forward development and planning of university expansion. They are the earlier stages which will pave the way to the further developments of later years; and the fact that they have come forward earlier is, I think, a healthy indication of the progress being made with the programme. The total therefore proposed for capital grants in this Supplementary Estimate is £5,800,000.
These are fairly substantial sums and the House may think it a trifle odd for a Treasury Minister to be commending additional expenditure with any show of enthusiasm. I make no apology, however, for presenting this Supplementary Estimate. It is not due to any miscalculation of the cost of items, but is simply an indication of better progress with plans and proposals which we all wish to see implemented as quickly as possible. It is not only money extremely well spent, but is also an indication that we are making better progress with university developments than my predecessor, even in his most optimistic mood, was able to forecast.

Mr. Charles Curran: Will my right hon. Friend amplify a little what he has just said about Government policy in respect of universities? Are we to take it that it is Government policy for places to be provided in universities for all persons who qualify for admission?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether, on this Supplementary Estimate in respect of buildings and of medical students, I would be in order in opening up that subject. I do not want to deny information to my hon. Friend, but I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am bound to say that I have the same impression.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: There are a number of questions which we want to raise about this Supplementary Estimate and another one to which I will refer shortly. As regards the latter, it is not a matter which directly concerns the Chief Secretary to

the Treasury and I would not expect him to reply to it. I would hope for a reply from other quarters.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for what he has said. As he will have observed, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, which, I think, is the Department about which the hon. and learned Member is concerned, is present. He is listening to what is said and if he is fortunate in catching Mr. Speaker's eye, he will—either in a different compartment or in the same compartment of this debate, as suits the convenience of the House—answer what has been said.

Mr. Mitchison: I should like to thank my right hon. enemy, if I may say so.
We are discussing a comparatively short list of Supplementary Estimates upon which we have had a Report from the Estimates Committee making the position clear. The position is that the Civil Contingencies Fund is limited by statute to £750 million in a year. We are discussing what the Government have been able to bring forward at this stage, because if we kept it to meet the wave of Supplementary Estimates that will come later, we should risk breaking the limit of the Civil Contingencies Fund. Any comments that we make about that rather remarkable state of affairs are probably best postponed, as were those of the Estimates Committee, to the time when we see what the ensuing wave is like. The Estimates Committee found it rather frightening. So do I. We must, however, see the size of it before we can say much more about it.
I am not really concerned with the first of the two items to which the Chief Secretary has spoken, which shows a quite small increase in what are called recurrent expenditure grants—in effect, income grants. I am concerned with the second one, which shows a large increase in capital expenditure grants. The right hon. Gentleman has described the type of thing that is involved—roughly speaking, half in buildings and half in equipment and the like.
This is not the first explanation that the right hon. Gentleman has given of this increase, because in the White Paper Cmnd. 1849, which he presented to Parliament in November, 1962, and which


has been discussed, he said in paragraph 70, page 22:
In September, 1962, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced that, in the light of advice he had received from the University Grants Committee, he had authorised the value of Exchequer-financed university building work started in 1963 to be increased from £25 million to £30 million.
Those are round figures and that, I take it, is the increase with which we are now dealing.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, it is not. This is a complicated matter and I sympathise with the hon. and learned Gentleman. There are two separate matters. The one referred to in the Public Investment White Paper, from which he has quoted, is with reference to the control of starts during calendar years. That is the control which we exercise by authorising a certain number of starts of a certain value in the year, generally reflected in rather larger expenditure. That reference in the Public Investment White Paper is to a decision to increase the number of starts. This Supplementary Estimate, on the other hand, relates to the totally different increase in actual expenditure in the current financial year. The two things are quite separate.

Mr. Mitchison: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman and with little respect to my own powers of perception, I fail to find the difference. We are dealing with Exchequer-financed university building work. We are told that the increase is an accelerated rate of settlement of claims for the payment of non-recurrent grants. That is pure Treasury language, but I am not sure that it means much when one looks at it.
The substantial point is that this increase arises on building expenditure. That expenditure is Exchequer-financed university building financed through the University Grants Committee. That appears to be the case, but if I am wrong about it, the right hon. Gentleman must correct me.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The money with which we are concerned in this Supplementary Estimate results from starts authorised in previous years. It cannot, in the nature of things, relate to starts recently authorised as referred to in the White Paper. The hon. and learned Gentleman will notice that

although the figures are approximately of the same order, they are not the same. The increase in starts was £5 million; the figure in the Supplementary Estimate is £5,880,000. This figure relates to starts authorised by my predecessors a year or two ago.

Mr. Mitchison: It relates also to the purchase of sites for future development. In a case of this kind, it is right and proper to see whether the Government are getting value for money in the increases which they consider sufficient and to see what the purpose of those increases is.
The broad purpose was put by the right hon. Gentleman today in the same way as it is put in the White Paper. Although it may be a different stage of the building programme, it is substantially one continuous building programme that goes on over a considerable number of years by annual stages. The building programme appears at the end of the last Estimates in a long list of projects, two or three of which the right hon. Gentleman used as instances today.
We are told that this programme includes equipment, and the rapidly rising expenditure on this programme, of which the Estimate is an instance, is to support the great expansion in numbers of students now in progress. There is surely no dispute about this. When we come to the Estimates in the White Paper, the language there must equally apply to the other stage with which we may be dealing today.
The increase was made in order to meet rises in costs and to maintain a level of building consonant with the expansion in the student population. What strikes me as doubtful is whether, in that latter respect, the right hon. Gentleman is really getting value for the increase. I want to tell him why.
I approach this question from a rather different angle. The right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that a great deal of this increase was devoted to scientific expenditure—that is to say, expenditure on buildings and equipment for scientific purposes—and that is exactly where we would expect the expenditure to come. Part of it, no doubt, is for the provision of halls of residence and the like. I am not so


much concerned about that. I want to consider the position relating to scientific expenditure.
Since the White Paper on Public Investment we have had the Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy. The curious thing about scientific policy is that although we have a Minister for Soience—when he is not occupied in being the Minister for Sport and the Minister for the North-East Coast—and he has a small office and we occasionally ask Questions of his Parliamentary Secretary, when it comes to hard cash the Research Council asks for its grants from the Treasury and the universities are dealt with by the University Grants Committee.
Incidentally, I heard with a thrill of inward delight the Minister telling us, in connection with the smaller item, what the recommendation of the University Grants Committee was. Would he be good enough to tell us what the Committee's recommendation was in connection with increased capital expenditure on buildings and equipment? That answer would be far more interesting. The Minister was willing to give the answer in the smaller case, but he would no doubt refuse it in the larger case. He is a most ingenious person and I would not put it beyond him to reconcile the two, but the apparent discrepancy is at any rate very striking.
The Annual Report of the Advisory Council is a tolerably recent one, having been presented last month, and it contains a Report from the Royal Society to the Advisory Council. In commenting on that Report the Advisory Council said that
this report contains much of interest which is not available elsewhere, and formed an important part of the evidence considered by us. … We do not, however, necessarily accept the views expressed at every point.
That is its attitude. I do not want to go beyond that. On page 7 the Advisory Council says:
In the universities art the present time, the situation is far from uniform. In some there exist large and well-equipped centres far biological research, but there are also small traditional departments with relatively modest equipment, and insufficient space in which to expand.
I hope that the increase will meet this difficulty, but it seemed a trifle small

for the purpose. The Advisory Council goes on to say:
While size and numbers are not necessarily criteria of the excellence of the work of a research department, it is undeniable that in many branches of biology, as of other subjects, adequate progress can only now be made with first-class modern equipment and facilities and interdisciplinary co-operation.
The phrase "inter-disciplinary co-operation" is really a reference to a different point, namely, that the frontiers of these disciplines or sciences are breaking rapidly, and what one used to consider to be a rather separate discipline is now realised to be a far larger thing, spreading, as it were, into the next-door subject, while the next-door subject spreads backwards into it. The whole picture is changing with extraordinary rapidity.
Continuing on the question of equipment—the other side of the picture—the Report says:
One of the difficulties consistently faced by leaders of biological research has been a critical shortage, in all but the newest schools recently equipped by the University Grants Committee"—
that refers to schools which are parts of universities, otherwise they would not be financed by the University Grants Committee—
of space for research equipment. It must, of course, be realised that these difficulties are not confined to biology, but the problem is accentuated in this field by growth in new directions which cut across the traditional structure of faculties in universities"—
this is the organisational side—
and which may call for special measures to meet the situation.
In paragraph 30 the Report says:
At the same time we are given to understand that over the next quinquennium there are no prospects of a more rapid expansion of university research, financed through general university income, than have existed in previous years.
We cannot discuss today what the Research Council should be doing in this direction but this is a most disheartening remark. It leads the Council to say:
We are thus led unavoidably to the view that it is hardly practicable to attempt to establish in every present-day centre of biological research an institution of the kind which we believe is essential if the United Kingdom is to keep its place in international developments in biology …
These are very strong words. This is the Government's own Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, and we are now


told by the right hon. Gentleman that this increase is the end for this year. He is taking a very happy and optimistic view of affairs if he considers that he is getting all that he requires by this increase.
I now turn to the Report of the Royal Society, which forms Appendix B to the Annual Report. It talks about increasing the numbers studying the physical sciences and technology, and so on. That is the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman himself related this increase. The Report then says, about the concentration of numbers, that
This policy has necessarily involved relative neglect of biological research in the universities.
On page 21 the Report says:
The resources of the U.G.C. have, to au overwhelming extent, been involved in the erection of buildings for the teaching of students.
I understand that that is not for research workers.
According to our inquiries, the lack of space is now one of the major handicaps to the further development of biological research in universities.
At the bottom of the page it says:
The magnitude of the research-effort in the field of science is not necessarily closely connected with the number of graduates in that field which it is desirable to produce. We are in an extremely rapidly advancing if not revolutionary phase of biology. This in itself is something that calls for a great effort in biology whose results either intellectual or practical cannot be foretold.
I shall not trouble the House by going on reading a very learned and at the same time a very sensible explanation of what is happening.
The document points out, for instance, that an adequate supply of human foodstuffs—that is, not merely adequate for this country but for the world—is involved in the work going on now. I know people in the Agricultural Research Station at Rothamsted—if I may digress for a moment—who are studying exactly that question. I noticed in one of the newspapers the other day that one of the leading oil companies was hoping to feed us on protein made out of oil.
I am making no criticisms—I am in no position to do so—but these are highly important matters. Yet all we are confronted with today is this increase. I am not complaining about it, it is good as far as it goes, but I am disappointed that

we should not have rather more in the terms of developing and encouraging research in view of the highly critical state of affairs indicated in this Report.
It ends by saying:
It would be quite unsafe to predict that any particular one of these suggestions …
And it has made a number, I have quoted two—
… is likely to eventuate within a few years, but it seems relatively safe to assert that some or other of them is likely to begin paying off in the not too distant future.
If these were small or trifling, or appeared to us in this House as small or trifling, I would not stress them in this way, but they are vital to the future of the country and vital, I think, to the future of the world. In the circumstances, I found the right hon. Gentleman's explanation rather unsatisfactory—not that he did not tell us the position, but that it did not seem that we were getting what was required at the moment.
I cannot of course say that the original Estimate ought to have been ten times as much or anything of that sort. I simply indicate in the most general terms that I completely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's feeling that all is well. I do not think anything of the sort. I regret, as he does, that a Treasury Minister should be put in the position of providing money through the U.G.C., on the one hand, and looking after the money of the country, including that money, on the other hand. I do not think we should ever put the Treasury on two sides of the table, but this matter is being investigated in other quarters. I cannot go into it today, and I mention it only because the right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned it.
I say to him in all seriousness that he must consider what is in these Reports. As long as the responsibility lies with the Treasury and those at the Treasury maintain their rôle of watch-dogs, they must remember that the functions of watch-dogs in this field are very narrow indeed compared with the magnitude of the considerations which call for proper provision of scientific research at present, and not just a provision to meet an increasing number of students—that, of course, has to be provided for—but provision to meet the growth of science itself.
Perhaps when some years ahead we look back we shall say that, although


no doubt it was of vital importance to increase the number of scientific students—I would not say anything other than that—it was at least equally important to see that what they were to learn and what they were to be taught should be the real modern developments, the kind of thing which is being done by such an institution as the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge. It gave a prize for a magnificent biological discovery of the highest importance, but those who get Nobel prizes would recognise that they are part of a team and a group of people who have been working, not necessarily in their time but often for a long time before them, on one line of research which may not at once have led to these startling results. We have to keep up with the times and not delay any longer about it.
I have said what I want to say and I have done my best, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to keep in order. I do not think I have done any worse in that respect than the right hon. Gentleman. I feel so strongly about this that I know the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to answer the substance of what has been put to him. The substance is that the Government are not finding enough money for scientific research at present.
I turn from that to the last point, which is an entirely separate one, on which I expect no comment from the right lion. Gentleman, but on which I hope I may get one from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. It is in the Ministry of Education's Supplementary Estimate. This item is on page 9 of the Supplementary Estimate, and in this case I have the happy advantage of an original Vote, not an increase. I have not to do quite so much skating over thin ice as I have been trying to do in the past few minutes.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is very suitable weather.

Mr. Mitchison: Quite so, but the ice is thawing and dangerous and we shall have to do something about it soon. This item is about half-way down the page, the last item on "International Subscriptions, &c." The amount is not a very large one and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will be disappointed to hear that I do not propose to be very

critical about it. It is numbered 3 and called:
U.N.E.S.C.O.: Emergency programme of financial aid to African countries; U.K. Government contribution £38,929.
I suppose that works out at something between 100,000 and 120,000 dollars. I see that the total expenditure for this university programme is 2¼ million dollars. I earnestly hope that we are paying our share. I should like to be reassured that that is so. The 2¼ million dollars may not be immediate expenditure—I do not think it is—but it is extraordinarily difficult to find what others have paid and what for the purpose of this Supplementary Estimate the total amount of our own contribution is. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot answer me, I tell him at once that I shall not complain. I tried to find out what it is, but it is difficult. One can always ask a question afterwards, but it is important to see what this is.
I hope that I have got it right and that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to add a little to what I have here. I have the last Report of the Director-General on the activities of U.N.E.S.C.O., but unfortunately these Reports come out slowly and this one is for 1961. It is therefore the later developments about which I should like particularly to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary. Apparently the origin of this was that an appeal was made to member States to assist through U.N.E.S.C.O. the development of education in the countries of Africa.
I read from page 43 of the Report, in the right-hand column, paragraph 174:
The general conference, … authorised 'the establishment of an emergency programme' to begin in 1961 …
That, I take it, is this programme—
and to continue for three years to serve four requirements: 'construction of educational buildings; production of teaching aids, both traditional and new; provision of overseas teachers and professors for secondary, technical and higher educational establishments; (and) assessment of educational needs'.
That programme, I suppose, began in 1961. I am rather curious to know why this comes up as a Supplementary Estimate. I should have thought that the Government would have been contributing in previous years. Is that the case? If not, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should defend the inaction of the Government in not contributing in previous years.
I should like to know what is being done and what progress is being made. This is intended to be a short emergency programme. If it has not started yet, whoever may be responsible, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it is disappointing that it has not started. It ought to have started in 1961. We are now in 1963, and for the first time we have a Supplementary Estimate about it. There follow a number of what I may call procedural and similar arrangements and there are one or two things which are mentioned as requirements but I am unable to get any detailed information about what actually happened in 1961.
There is one matter which I should like to mention and about which I admit at once I have an interest—not in a bad sense, but because I am personally interested. It is the business of sending teachers to Africa. I understand that this has been done by one or two county councils in England and to my knowledge by at least one in Scotland. I do not know what the results have been. Have any teachers been going out? Can the hon. Gentleman say how the matter stands? Another thing which interests me is the production of teaching aids, both traditional and new. That sounds to have real possibilities and I hope that we shall be told what they all are.
I must apologise for some of the length of time I have taken and I must also apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for having dealt with matters with which he usually deals, but we thought it more convenient to raise it in this way. If he has anything to say, he may have the good fortune to catch your eye later on, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for listening with such patience to such a detailed attack on the Government.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: It is always a lesson to follow the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) when he has been skating on thin ice. I have to do the same and he will appreciate that we both face the same physical difficulties.
I may well have to declare an interest in what I am about to say on this matter, because I am a Member of the Court of Reading University. It is a great

pleasure to me to be able to thank my right hon. Friend for having included in the Supplementary Estimate an increase of up to £154,000 for the chemistry building at Reading University. I am sure that everyone will realise that this only goes to show that Reading University is trying to push on with all possible speed because of the chronic necessity for this accommodation.
I welcomed what I thought to be the much more concilatory tone and encouraging approach which we had from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary compared with that of his predecessor when I raised this matter only a year ago. I hope that this change will continue, that it is not a flash in the pan and that this attitude towards universities, for which there is a greater need than for almost anything else at the moment, will continue—I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend should be slapdash in the way he treats other Votes.
I admit at once that the amount needed by the university to hold to its originally approved levels of capital expenditure during this period would be about £½ million to £⅔ million. We have received about £200,000, but part of it is what now has the horrible name, "erosion", which means that this is the difference between the approved estimate and the actual figure which has to be met. It is the cost of the time of building. For Reading, this means that we have to postpone other major projects until 1965.
I do not believe that this is what my right lion. Friend wishes to happen. It is certainly not what I wish to happen. The record of the Conservative Government in pushing forward with university expansion is better than that of any previous Government. We all want to go fast. I know that I carry the Opposition with me on that, but it must be remembered that this is as fast as has ever been known. [Laughter.]

Mr. E. G. Willis: Really!

Mr. Emery: Hon. Members may laugh and scorn and cast doubts about it, but what matters is that the people at the universities know this to be a fact; and those who are serious want to ensure that this is treated seriously and not as a laughing matter and that we pursue that approach which was evidenced by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the hon. Member go up the line from Reading to Oxford and visit Professor Denys Wilkinson, of nuclear physics, and 26, Banbury Road, which used to a girls' grammar school until it was declared unfit and which then housed some nurses until they decided that the plumbing was too old, when it became the Department of Nuclear Physics? Will he make that visit and then make his assumptions?

Mr. Emery: I am always delighted to go up the river from the senior university of Reading to one of the more junior universities, which I happened to attend. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 26 Banbury Road, which is only nine doors away from where I had my "digs" when I was in college, so I know the area especially well.
There is certainly a need for expansion, as the Minister would be the first to agree. We can find specific examples throughout the country. What I am pointing out, and I am taking Reading as an example, is that if the universities got on with their programmes it would be seen that the Minister was willing to come forward—I would push him further—with Supplementary Estimates to assist them. I am saying that the proof of that is the chemistry building at Reading, which is ahead of schedule.

Mr. Sydney Irving: Will the hon. Member tell me of any major Western country of which it is not also true that there is an expansion? Is not the real criterion not whether there has been an expansion, but whether, on the one hand, it has met the need, and, on the other, whether it is keeping pace with that of the rest of the world?

Mr. Emery: If I dealt with all the implications of that question, I would be completely under the ice on which I have been trying to skate. I have noticed you nodding, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and, without any discourtesy. I will not reply to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving), because that would mean bringing back the whole House for an education debate.

Mr. Willis: It was a very relevant question.

Mr. Mitchison: Mr. Mitchison rose—

Mr. Emery: I shall not give way at the moment. However relevant this may be,

the debate is on a specific question. I am doing my best to keep within the rules of order. I know that some hon. Members delight in seeing them broken, but I am not one of those. There are many other hon. Members who wish to speak on other issues—

Mr. Cyril Bence: Where are they?

Mr. Emery: —and I shall, therefore, pursue what I was saying.

Mr. Mitchison: What we were objecting to, in case the hon. Gentleman did not understand, is this. We understand that he is on thin ice, but he should not skate over it by saying positively that he thinks that the Government have done so much, and imply that they have done, and are doing, enough. We do not think so.

Mr. Emery: I know the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. G. R. Mitchison) well enough to know that whatever the Government were doing it would not be enough, and that the nearer we get to the General Election the more positive will that statement become.
Let us return to the matter under discussion, because this increase in the building programme is of major concern to Reading. Let us consider what has happened as a result of this postponement. During the last term enrolments increased by 100. The curve of enrolments had been rising at a steady rate until 6th September, when it flattened out, and I am urging that we should take action to ensure that the curve moves up at a faster rate than ever before.
The difficulty is that to do this in Reading we must have the necessary accommodation. It had been proposed to include a hall of residence in one of the buildings which cannot now be built because of this postponement, and the absence of this will make it three times more difficult for the court of the university to increase the number of places available. This will mean that by the end of the quinquennium there will be 200 places fewer than we had hoped would be available at the university.
It is imperative that the Government and the University Grants Committee


get together. It is not unfair to say that there has been a certain amount of friction in the relations between the Government and the Committee. It is imperative that this should be overcome, because only by doing so shall we get the speed which is essential for the expansion indicated by the Supplementary Estimate. We are not asking for absurd amounts. We are suggesting that those universities which have proved themselves able to expand should be encouraged to do so.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) on intervening in this intimate debate between the two Front Benches. I want to say a few words about universities and then turn to the provisions made in the Education Vote.
It is a great pleasure—speaking relatively—to hear the right hon. Gentleman. We must prefer him to the Home Secretary. We are very glad that the atmosphere is much better, and that, instead of being discouraged, universities are being congratulated if they exceed the restraint put on them by the Home Secretary. I would, however, like to emphasise the problems of our universities, and show why the provisions we are making are absolutely and wholly inadequate.
People ought to realise that during the last 100 years we have been fortunate enough to be able to provide a university education which is second to none as cheaply as it is possible to provide it, but that means that if we consider our present provision for university education we find that enormous expenditure is necessary merely to bring it up to date.
It does not need the Robbins Committee to demonstrate that the need for people with higher education qualifications is considerably in excess of what it was a few years ago, and that as a result the demands on universities are greater than ever. It is, therefore, irrelevant to talk about providing more this year than last year.
Thirdly, more pupils than ever are coming forward from the schools, because of the coincidence of the bulge and the trend, qualified to enjoy university education, and it will be a tragedy if, in the

next few years, these young people are not given the opportunity of enjoying the higher education they have earned. That is why, although we welcome the provisions, we cannot regard them as being sufficient to meet our needs.
It is appropriate that the hon. Gentleman should have mentioned Reading University, but it is unrealistic to be self-congratulatory about the provision made at Reading for the teaching of chemistry when my information is that courses in archaeology, general linguistics, and Russian are held up due to the Government's economy measures, and that the start of major building for botany, zoology, psychology—and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will be interested in this —and microbiology have been deferred for one year because of the economy measures imposed by the Government.

Mr. Peter Emery: In all fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I must point out that at Reading two, and only two, buildings have been deferred. If he is suggesting that the teaching of the subjects to which he has referred is concentrated in two buildings, I cannot give him a judgment on that, but I assure him that the deferment is in respect of only two buildings.

Mr. Willey: My information is from the Association of University Teachers, and I have no doubt that it is correct. The information has come from the university, but as the hon. Gentleman has taken that point I shall mention one or two other universities.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Imperial College. My information is that the new buildings for departments of mathematics and meteorology, and the second stage of the new chemistry building, have been deferred because of Government economies.
Turning to the other universities mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, the position is that although we welcome the fact that work has progressed so successively over the current year that it has exceeded what the Government anticpated, nevertheless, because of the attitude adopted by the Home Secretary and the present Minister of Education during the last year, the universities are seriously prejudiced.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman pays less attention to me than to the


Spectator. When commenting on the effect on universities of the Government's policy, it put the matter very succinctly. It said:
In the second, and more sadly, a forward-looking Minister of Education, who had clearly quarrelled with the Government over their decision and whose chief ability was to be able to win money for his department so that the number and variety of pupils staying at school until the sixth form had increased overwhelmingly, has been dismissed 
This was one of the victims of the "summer massacre".
In his place is a man who, in the parliamentary debate on government aid, showed that he had no concern about the treatment of the U.G.C. and seemed to regard favourably the Treasury's encroaching on its rights.
This is the unfortunate position about the university grants and, as was said at the time by the Vice-Chancellor of Manchester University—we respect his authority—
it is now too late to cope.
Thousands of young people will not enjoy the right to higher education which they have earned.
As the House may know, the Association of University Teachers recently held an inquiry which revealed that at least 2.000 young people, who were properly qualified and eager to go to university, will not have the opportunity. So I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we appreciate his ebullient attitude very much, but hope that he will translate it as rapidly as possible into more effective action so that we may get a reversal of the present attitude towards universities adopted by the Government and that, without waiting for the report of the Robbins Committee, we shall take every step possible to encourage universities to expand as much as they can.
The tragic position here is that the universities, which are very conservative bodies, are willing and anxious to expand, and it is the Government who are preventing them from doing so. To give relevance to the Supplementary Estimate, may I say that it is no use encouraging the provision of new buildings unless we also encourage the provision of staffs. During the last twelve months there has been a serious erosion of physicists and many other faculties at the universities.
Turning to the Education Vote, I wish to make one point in the interest of the

House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman—I am obliged to him for staying for this debate—will pay serious attention to this point—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Now that the hon. Member has reached this point, I am wondering whether it would suit the convenience of the House, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—who also raised a number of points —if I made a brief reply to them and then, when we reach the other debate, I will hand over to my hon. Friend. Would the hon. Gentleman like me to make a short intervention now?

Mr. Wiley: I am certain that the House would welcome an intervention from the right hon. Gentleman, if it were assumed to be an interruption in the course of my speech so that I may be entitled to resume my speech afterwards.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I seek the leave of the House, which I need, to comment on a point on which I have been asked to comment by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North and by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery). I am, in so doing, subject to the difficulty that the Supplementary Estimate relates only to the provisions in the current year, and clearly, therefore, I should be going quite outside that Estimate were I to discuss proposals or policies going into the next financial years; though I certainly would not be unwilling, on a suitable occasion, to go wider into those matters.

Mr. Mitchison: What about sites?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We are making great progress with sites which, I agree, is a good and vivid indication that we are looking to the future. But I do not think I can, without getting completely outside this Supplementary Estimate, go into the details of future plans.
I hope that I shall not incur your displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I say that I find little with which to quarrel in the attitude regarding the future as indicated in the speeches which we have heard. I share the view expressed by hon.


Members on both sides of the House regarding the fundamental importance to the country of maintaining and sustaining university expansion. I hope, again, that I shall not get into trouble if I point out, in fairness to my predecessors, that we have seen this element of the capital grant more than quadrupled during the last ten years, from £7·6 million to £32·4 million.
That is an indication of the line which we have been following and intend to pursue. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading was not only personally very agreeable, but also, for reasons which the House would not fully appreciate, very forgiving. As a member of the Court of the University of Reading, he was very forgiving for not holding against us the fact that we have persuaded that university's very able Vice-Chancellor to assume the crucial post of Chairman of the University Grants Committee.

Mr. Peter Emery: I particularly did not wish to bring up that matter, because I do not know that I shall forgive my right hon. Friend for that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that University Grants Committee, and the university world, will be grateful to the University of Reading for allowing this very able man to take up this appointment.
In reply to my hon. Friend—this is part of the difficulty in which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering found himself—this provision is not in any appreciable way due to the result of what my hon. Friend called erosion. It is the result of accelerated progress. The question of erosion arose on the other matter referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that of increasing starts.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked a certain amount about the provision for scientific research. As he will know, a good deal of scientific research is not only not provided for in this Estimate, but not on any of these Votes. It is provided on the Vote of the D.S.I.R., for which my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council is responsible. But, because of the way in which we do things in this country, a certain amount of scientific research is done through the universities and it is affected by this Vote, and quite directly through the provisions under this Vote for additional equipment, particularly I

in the new scientific departments being developed at present.
In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and dealing, as one enforcedly does in these circumstances with only a small part of the problem, I can only say that the need for expanded scientific research is fully appreciated and that in a small way this seems to me to assist towards it.

Mr. Mitehison: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I picked my quotations very carefully to leave out research council expenditure so far as possible and to confine myself strictly to the subject of this Vote? I may not have been wholly successful, but I did try. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us the recommendations of the University Grants Committee for buildings and equipment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The only University Grants Committee recommendation with which we are concerned in the Supplementary Estimate is the specific one, as I explained, under Subhead A for additional medical students. The question of U.G.C. recommendations does not arise on the rest of the Estimate, because it is simply providing money earlier in respect of recommendations which had previously been accepted. Therefore, it only arises on this aspect of medical students when we asked the views of the Committee what provision would be needed to get this expanded output of medical students.

Mr. Mitehison: If the Government go on like this we shall become more and more convinced of the much greater size of the requests of the University Grants Committee than of the Government's provision for them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As to capital grants, which form the greater part of this Vote, these are the working out of recommendations previously accepted, but as I have tried to explain to the House, progressed with so much more quickly that they have to be paid for in the current year. This, apart from the small point I have mentioned of the medical students, is the essence of this Estimate. Though I lack the adroitness of the hon. and learned Gentleman have attempted to go a little wider, but obviously cannot go very much wider.
Perhaps I can say that it does not raise the general question of university policy. It does, however—and this is encouraged and welcomed by the Government—indicate directly the speed at which the universities are getting on with the job of expansion and I hope that as the years pass that zeal and determination will be well supported.

Mr. Willey: Mr. Willey rose4—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) may speak again only by leave of the House, in the same way as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury could make his second speech only by leave of the House.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am also obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
I want to make a point now to which I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to reply, but to which I hope he will pay attention. In the Education Estimates there is a substantial increase in two items referring to grants and loans to aided and special agreement schools. The Estimates reveal not only that a substantial amount of money—£9½ million—is involved, but also that the extent of the error is over 100 per cent. However, this is an improvement and we welcome it.
We now have the advantage of the third Report from the Select Committee on Estimates. I want to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one difficulty that, the Select Committee must have felt, and this is a reflection upon Treasury sanction and supervision. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) very fairly pointed out that these matters are planned over a period of time. He asked how such a large error could be made. He said:
I must press this, because all the large items of a building programme are approved a long time in advance by the Ministry.
This is the reply, and it is this which I take exception:
… I cannot answer this question in detail. If you wish to pursue it, it would be with the Ministry of Education. These may not be major works; these could possibly be minor works.

Another Treasury official said:
I would think that they would be mostly major works.
This is an affront to the House. The Estimates Committee sits to give the House information about Estimates. The Treasury is well informed about this and knows full well what it will be asked. I do not regard this as a question of detail. Whether they are major or minor works is of fundamental importance. For the Treasury to appear before the Committee, not knowing whether they are major or minor, and merely to say, "If you want to pursue the matter you had better get somebody from the Ministry of Education", creates the impression that there is very inadequate Treasury supervision. It would appear that what the Ministry of Education does is of little concern to the Treasury. It is almost as if the Treasury merely accounts for the figures, but that if any questions of detail are raised the Committee must go to the Department concerned.
This involves £9½ million and is, therefore, a matter of some importance. How did this error happen? I do not invite the right hon. Gentleman to answer now, unless he feels like intervening again, but I hope that he will take account of this debate and realise that a Select Committee cannot be properly served if there is such inadequacy of information from those who give evidence for the Treasury.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Naturally, I have not had the opportunity to apply my mind to this matter, but I undertake to look into it. The rest of the subject is a matter for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. I appreciate, however, that the conduct of the Treasury has rightly been raised with me and I shall look into it although, obviously, I cannot give the answer for a few days.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He is a very good House of Commons man. He has taken the point and I know that he will honour his undertaking.
Now I shall turn to the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. It asks for twice as much money as was envisaged for grants and loans for aided and special


agreement schools. How did this miscalculation come about? If we relied upon the Treasury witnesses, we would be no wiser because they knew little or nothing about how these figures were arrived at. The Ministry, trying to be helpful, submitted a memorandum to the Select Committee. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with this matter in more detail and more effectively than that memorandum did. It called in aid irrelevant points, including the change in percentage in 1959.
I have been dissatisfied for some time with the way in which the Ministry deals with school building in forward-estimating. The Ministry has very properly encouraged looking ahead so that there may be more effective planning and utilisation of resources. This is a considerable help to local authorities. But to be effective the planning must be accurate and in view of the fact that the Ministry is making a five-year programme it seems extraordinary that a mistake of this magnitude should arise.
While we welcome the very substantial increase and the fact that twice as many voluntary schools are being built as was originally envisaged, this is a matter of importance which should be dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary. Last year, we held a debate on the school building programme for 1963–64. Then the Minister said that he had cut the programme from £64 million to £55 million, but in the details of the programme we found that his figure was inaccurate and that it had been cut down not to £55 million, but to £47 million.
Naturally, we welcome any increase in the Education Vote, particularly for sport. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether the Department's programme for sport is running in pace with the announcement made by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) in answer to a Question of mine last year. In other words, are the Government keeping pace with the accelerated programme they announced at that time?
The same applies to the Albemarle Report. We welcome the increased provision for the Youth Service. This is also really a question of pace. I was rather disturbed to find that the present pace is about two-thirds of that which

the Ministry hoped to achieve in its original programme. We welcome the increase in the Vote in this connection, but would like to know whether the Ministry is far behind its original target.
What progress is being made by the Ministry on new building for colleges of advanced technology? This is of considerable importance for these colleges and is one of the things which is retarding their pace of advance. The fact that the Ministry is asking for more money for the training for teachers is encouraging, but I would like to know how the expansion in teacher training has gone because the answer to that question will give us a clue about the prospects of teacher training expansion this year. I would like to pay tribute to the training colleges, for they have done an excellent job in increasing the number of students they have been able to accept.
As far as I can see from the figures, we started last year with the prospect of 15,000 students entering teacher training colleges. As the year progressed, the figure of 17,000 students was accepted and the figures now show that we almost reached 18,000. This is a great achievement by the training colleges and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say that they have not exhausted all the possibilities for extra students and that we can still hope that an even greater number will be admitted.
Just as it is vitally important to universities to get every additional student they can—particularly in view of the large number of students who have qualified for entry—the same is true of the training colleges. The figures reveal that by the end of the year there were at least 3,000 qualified young people who sought training college education, but who could not get it, despite their qualifications. This is a national disaster when we are so short of teachers.
We welcome all these additional expenditures on education, and are optimistic enough to hope that the Minister will try to increase even more Supplementary Estimates, which the House will approve. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman will realise that what these Supplementary Estimates really demonstrate is that within the education service itself there is an ingenuity and a wish for the greater provision for education which is breaking the restraints put upon


it by the Government. It would be far better to adopt a different attitude, and to say that it should be encouraged, and it is in the national interest to do it as generously as we can.

8.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): The first point mentioned by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) related to grants and loans for aided and special schools. As he pointed out, a memorandum was submitted to the Estimates Committee on behalf of my right hon. Friend. It explained that this increase was due to the simultaneous operation of a number of factors. The hon. Gentleman suggested that two of those factors—the rising proportion of the building programme devoted to voluntary schools, and the effect of the 1959 Act—were irrelevant. With respect, I suggest that both of them are very relevant because while we knew about these in advance of the original Estimates for the year, the fact that the proportion of the building programme devoted to voluntary schools is increasing as it is is bound to multiply any error that may creep into the Estimates as originally presented. One of the reasons why that voluntary provision is rising is that in recent years, and this year, we have been able to provide for more remodelling and extension jobs, which are much more likely to relate to voluntary schools than to new schools.
The effect of the 1959 Act presents a very real accounting difficulty in the Ministry of Education. At the moment, bills are being presented to us at both the 50 per cent. and the 75 per cent. rate, because much work is still in progress that has only qualified for the 50 per cent. rate, and this mixture of claims evidently adds to forecasting difficulties at this stage.
The major factor here is that the claims for grants have been coming in much more quickly than previously. In this memorandum, the Department went into some detail about our experience in relation to claims, and paragraph 5 gives details of the Ministry's experience in this respect in the past, and of the very substantial change it has experienced this year. Previously, as will be seen, over the five-year cycle that we have come to expect in any major project, there were

very few claims in the first year. Most of the claims came in the second year, considerably fewer in the third year, virtually none in the fourth year, and a postscript, so to speak, in the fifth year, when the contractors' final bills had been presented to the schools and the school authorities had presented them to us.
A great acceleration in the submission of claims for grants has been experienced this year. This may be due to a greater efficiency in building which is resulting in quicker completion of jobs. It is partly that and partly due, apparently, to a quicker submission of claims by the voluntary education authorities and the schools themselves. It may be that higher interest rates have had something to do with that. It may be that the schools have not wished to carry the burden of payment of the bills for too long and have consequently made arrangements to submit their claims to us much quicker than they have done previously. These are the major factors which have led to this very substantial Supplementary Estimate this year. We can take satisfaction, however, in the reflection that it arises primarily because work is being done more quickly than hitherto and more quickly than we had expected.
On the subject of grants for further education the hon. Member mentioned the colleges of advanced technology and the teacher training colleges. The increased figure under subhead F (1) (b) "Capital: Acquisition of additional building sites, etc." relates primarily to the acquisition of the site for Brunel College which, as the hon. Member probably knows, is moving to Uxbridge. This is a purchase which was made rather earlier than we had expected, for a sum of about £200,000, which accounts for a large part of the Supplementary Estimate.
As the hon. Member will know, there has been an increase in the intake into the teacher training colleges even above the estimated increase which led to our original forecast of expenditure. I was glad that the hon. Member paid a tribute to the colleges, because this Supplementary Estimate arose from the really exceptional efforts which have been made by the teacher training colleges in getting into them this year 48,000 students.
The hon. Member asked about future plans. I realise that I am not allowed


on this occasion to pursue very far a debate on that subject. He will be aware, however, that my right hon. Friend has only recently announced further expansion plans with the intention of raising the population of the teacher training colleges from 48,000 to 80,000 by 1970–71. When we consider that the population stood at 28,000 in 1958 this is very substantial expansion, almost a trebling in a period of 12 years.
The hon. Member finally touched upon the increases which appear for social and educational recreation. These flow largely from the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last July. We have devoted the larger proportion of the additional sums available to us for support to the youth service programme, concentrating on capital projects within that programme which are concerned with sport and recreation. As the hon. Member will see, there has also been a substantial increase in the grant to voluntary organisations for physical training and recreation, which are made under the Physical Training and Recreation Act separately from our capital programme for the Youth Service and for sport.

Mr. Mitchison: I am very interested in the Lord President of the Council. He is also the Minister for Science. He has some functions in regard to sport, though I have never quite understood what they were. Does the hon. Gentleman keep in close touch with him, and what does he do when he is up in the North-Fast?

Mr. Chataway: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman feels that sport should engage the full-time attention of a senior Cabinet Minister. Perhaps that view could be sustained in the House of Commons, though I do not think that, even given my enthusiasm for sport, it would be one to which I should subscribe.
My noble Friend is concerned with the co-ordination of the work of the various Departments which are concerned with sport in this country. In the Ministry of Education, obviously, we have a hand in the provision of sporting facilities in both the schools and the youth services and in the grants

we make under the Physical Training and Recreation Act. An even larger sum of money is spent by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on sports facilities. One of the recommendations of the Wolfenden Report was that there should be much closer co-operation between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Department which also is concerned.
I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I are in close touch with the arrangements which the Lord President is at present making for a review of sports provision and Government arrangements in this matter.

Mr. Mitchison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it never occurred to me to suggest that the Lord President of the Council should devote all his time to the subject of sport. He is supposed to do other things. But will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether he notices any difference now that he is co-ordinated?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am becoming a little perplexed to know how this is connected with the Supplementary Estimates we are debating.

Mr. Chataway: Perhaps I had better move on, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the series of questions which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) put to me about the emergency programme of financial aid to African countries and the Supplementary Estimate which appears here for nearly £39,000 in respect of the United Kingdom Government's contribution.
I attended the U.N.E.S.C.O. conference in December and had something to do with this subject. Britain was one of the co-sponsors of the resolution in 1960 which set up this Africa Emergency Fund, but Her Majesty's Government made clear then that, in view of our very extensive aid commitments in Africa, we should not ourselves be making a contribution to the fund. This was a voluntary fund outside the regular U.N.E.S.C.O. programme and budget. Some would advance objections in principle to the setting up of such funds, feeling that it would be better for such work to appear in the regular U.N.E.S.C.O. programme. But, in view


of the needs in this field, and in view of the support that this project was receiving, the United Kingdom delegation at that conference agreed to support the setting up of the fund, but made it absolutely clear that it could not join with the countries which were contributing to it.
The amount aimed at initially for the three-year period was 4 million dollars. By mid-October, just over 2Û million dollars had been contributed to the fund and projects of a total estimated cost of nearly 3,400,000 dollars had been approved or provisionally approved by the Executive Board of U.N.E.S.C.O. At that point, 29 countries had contributed.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the work which had so far been undertaken under this programme. It includes a basic survey of educational needs in Africa on which 1 million dollars has been either expended or approved; aid in the construction of school buildings and, in particular, a scheme for text book production centres—that is all that I can find under the Subhead about which the hon. and learned Gentleman particularly inquired in relation to teaching aids —and a supply of overseas teachers and professors to African countries. I understand that at that point in October about 70 teachers and professors had been supplied on a temporary basis to a number of African countries.
During the 1962 conference, which both my right hon. Friend and I attended for short periods, it was learned that Britain was due to receive a rebate on her United Kingdom subscription to U.N.E.S.C.O.—a repayment of our earlier contributions. Mention will be found of this under Subhead L on page 10 of the Estimates. The budget surplus arose out of the payment of arrears of subscriptions by other countries.
A number of delegations at the conference suggested that the rebates that they received should be contributed to one or other of the special activities of U.N.E.S.C.O. It was therefore decided that a sum equivalent to this rebate should be contributed by Her Majesty's Government to the Africa Emergency Fund. I was able to announce this to the U.N.E.S.C.O. conference on behalf of the Government, and it was very well received, particularly by the African countries.
I think that the House will take satisfaction from the fact that the Government were able to make this contribution. The fund always had our support and sympathy. U.N.E.S.C.O. is able to make a very valuable contribution in this field and the project was attracting support from a number of other countries. Despite the exceptionally heavy aid commitments which we have in Africa, it seemed right that Britain should not stand aside from this fund.
The figures listed in the Supplementary Estimates will be subject to amendment again in a further Supplementary Estimate which we shall have to present. We were notified by the U.N.E.S.C.O. Secretariat that the rebate would amount to £38,929, but that this was subject to confirmation some months later. It now appears that the figure should be about £1,000 or so less than that, and we shall therefore correct it on a future Supplementary Estimate.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee Tomorrow.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL SHIPS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In my view, school ships should ideally be built and operated by a commission comprising representatives of the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Education. Tonight, however, I am presenting an alternative case, because I feel that it would be more attractive to the present Administration.
The proposition is that the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department should approach a number of shipping companies to discuss the possibility of building, say, six 15,000-ton specially designed school ships. The second part of the proposition is that construction costs be borne by the shipowners on the guarantee of a 20-year charter from the Ministry of Education in similar terms to that given by the Ministry of Transport for troopships in former times.
In this debate, I am concentrating on one objective: to persuade the Minister to set up a heavyweight committee to discuss the topic and to report to him. Perhaps the following organisations should each be invited to send a representative to the committee: the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department, the National Union of Teachers and the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Association of Chief Education Officers and the Association of Scottish Directors of Education, the appropriate authorities in Northern Ireland, headmasters' associations, certainly the shipping companies and the shipbuilders themselves, the education committee of the British Employers' Confederation and the education committee of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress.
Such a committee would discuss a project which in embryo has proved practical and workable. Pioneering has been done by the British India Steam Navigation Company, which converted the troopships "Dunera" and "Devonia". I should say in parenthesis that although I worked at sea on the "Dunera" for 13 months, I have no financial axe to grind in this topic and have no financial connection whatever with the company.
My first point is that the case for school ships stands or falls on academic considerations. To he feasible, the ships must operate at least 10½months in the year, which involves term-time voyaging and leave of absence from school. It is sufficient to reflect that senior representatives of 70 education authorities have travelled on the pioneer ship "Dunera", have expressed themselves as more than satisfied with the curriculum and have talked of the great potential value of the 13-day cruise, which is no mere holiday joyride since there is a balanced timetable in and out of classrooms related to the subject matter that pupils come across, on the voyage.
Writing on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education and her own Department, the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), who is one of the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, wrote:
The present experimental scheme has been well supported and there is no doubt that the cruises have definite educational value.
That was what the hon. Lady said in her letter of 8th January.
My second point is that the letter goes on to say:
We think, however, that it is, perhaps, still a little too early to say whether they are likely to prove a permanent feature and whether the demand for them is likely to increase to such an extent that additional shipping will be required.
I agree that no balanced assessment can be made from the pupils' immediate reactions, often gushing and even tearful, on going down the gangway at the end of a voyage. But surely some valid judgment can now be made, in February, 1963, about those pupils who travelled as long ago as April, 1961. Twenty months later parents and teachers say that they have noticed an added curiosity and a zest for work among the young people who have been on the trip, which they believe can sensibly be traced to the experience of a ship school.
Incidentally, this argument does not apply simply to geography. It concerns other subjects, especially mathematics, as a result of seeing men in an adult world on bridge or in engine room or navigation classes doing a man's job and using algebra and trigonometry.
In a ship it is possible to have a framework of order which is not to be underestimated when one is taking 13-year-olds abroad. To my certain personal knowledge, over 13 months, out of about 10,000 boys and girls not a single pupil was late for the ship at 18 ports of call; nor was there any occasion for corporal punishment.
As we have time, I want to expand this point. Many people would suppose that the taking of a large number of pupils to foreign ports would involve, sooner or later, the certainty that some would go astray. This would be a good mathematical chance. These people imagine that those responsible in the ship would find themselves calling upon the services of Interpol in Hamburg or Lisbon to search for a youngster who failed to turn up. This does not happen. It is a workable and practicable scheme.
The next question that we must face is that of seasickness. It has to be admitted that it can be extremely uncomfortable for 24 hours. But this problem should be seen in the light of the educational experience to be derived by those who have not frequently been away from home before. We must also


remember that pupils are far more resilient than parents, and if any sympathy is to be extended it should be to the teachers who go with the children rather than to the pupils themselves.
I should be less than honest if I did not refer to one snag. It is a question not so much of the interruption of the studies of those pupils who go in the ship—this is not greatly significant; it is rather the disruption of work of those who are left behind in half-filled or denuded classes, and those in other classes whose teachers have gone away. The answer seems to be to take whole classes, especially as the greatest value of any voyage is obtained by those pupils who spend months in their schools working up, with the voyage as a climax for their study, maximising the value derived from their preparatory work and the voyage itself by doing systematic follow-up work in the weeks after disembarkation.
Let as not view this subject entirely in isolation. It involves a period of months beforehand and at least weeks, if not months, after the voyage, especially for junior secondary modern pupils. Indirect Government finance will be required, at least for those whose parents' pockets are not deep enough, if classes are to be taken in their entirety. Eventually we might dream about every pupil having the chance of a voyage once in his or her school lifetime, perhaps on payment of £5 or £10 —paid, in my opinion, not by the pupils' parents but by the boys and girls them selves, thereby eliminating certain dangers that are apt to arise from a "something for nothing" attitude.
For the present, however, let us confine ourselves to saying that pupils who, in the opinion of their headmasters, could benefit, and whose classmates are going, should not be barred on purely financial grounds. It may be contended that if moneys from a general Exchequer grant were allocated proportionately to each authority to enable it to allow some pupils to go, the choice of school to benefit would be an invidious one for education authorities. It would be asked why should School A be able to send a whole class rather than School B. This is a real practical problem.
On the other hand, is not education already biased as between schools? In terms of West Lothian, there is no doubt

that pupils who go to school at that magnificent new building provided by the West Lothian education authority at Broxburn, of which any country could be proud, are getting a significantly better education than those who go to school in some Victorian building, perhaps 120 years old, where the facilities are necessarily not so good.
In such a situation, the education authority might see fit to spend an earmarked grant on a scholarship course for pupils from its less fortunate schools. This raises the question of financial assistance from the Exchequer. Again I quote from the hon. Lady's letter written on 8th January:
The two education departments will for their part be ready to give the company what guidance they can so far as their respective interests are concerned, but I am afraid we can hold out no prospect of financial assistance from the Exchequer. The powers granted under the Education Acts could not be used to give financial help for a purpose of this kind—let alone to commission vessels—and we must keep in mind that the education service already makes very heavy demands on the Exchequer.
The letter goes on:
The schoolship scheme is an imaginative venture of considerable importance, but we are bound to view it against the background of the priority requirements of the education service as a whole.
To be frank, I think that herein lies a false hypothesis. I do not accept for a moment that this scheme should be viewed from the narrow educational priorities of 1963. This is a sort of assumption that is derived from what might be termed an unhealthy, Departmental compartmentalisation. If it were a straight choice between more land schools or ship schools, if there were one or the other, I would plump for land schools, but that seems not to be the choice. It would only be the choice if one could turn thousands of underemployed shipbuilding workers on the Tyne, the Mersey, the Clyde and in Northern Ireland, and sailors, into fully employed building workers overnight. This itself is an unrealistic assumption and I think we can leave that state of affairs out of the question.
The choice has to be made, not against what the hon. Lady in her letter called:
the background of the priority requirements of the education service as a whole
but against the background of the needs of Britain as a whole. The choice is whether we are content with the present


parlous state of the shipping industry or whether—one must admit this, it is no use hiding it—keeping taxes perhaps a little higher than they otherwise might have been; grants are promised to education authorities to guarantee 20-year charters to shipping lines which are prepared to order, out of their own funds, ships here and now.
If we are talking about Treasury grants to help shipbuilding, it is legitimate to point out and to remind the House of what I would call the unpretty spectacle last December of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) asking for more ships to be built in her constituency and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams)—in a debate which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will remember—asking for a couple of frigates to be built in his constituency. That was not on defence grounds, but so that the citizens of his constituency could remain in full employment.
School ships would have precisely the same effect employmentwise. If the Treasury has money to spend on ships with the ultimate object of maintaining peace, it would be better invested in school ships than in obsolete frigates. Without hesitation I declare that "Dunera" and "Devonia", by taking 800 school children on trips to Leningrad on seven occasions, have contributed ten times the value of the return of money spent on warships.
A school ship is not an alternative to land travel. This we have never believed. It is different. It is an additional experience of the ocean which means so much to this island and which should be experienced once by each young person, if that is possible.
Perhaps one potential development is the use of a school ship, as Dr. Reith, the Director of Education in the City of Edinburgh would have it, as an introductory experience to foreign travel, to give confidence to 13- and 14-year-olds. If in future it is desirable for pupils to go abroad for a time to learn a language, they will have the greater confidence to do so if they have been on a school ship first.
It is not just a question of the priority requirements of the education service as

a whole. Vital issues are clearly raised of the relationship of the future generation with Europeans, whether or not we eventually go into the Common Market. Important issues such as how we educate for Europe must not be left to the uncoordinated decisions of individual commercial companies at given points of time.
The letter of 8th January says:
Since the ships which are used at present are owned and run by the British India Steam Navigation Company, any replacement of these vessels which may become necessary in time is essentially a matter for the owners to consider.
Left to themselves, without guarantees, the owners will clearly not be able to be certain of charging fares appropriate to pupils and commensurate with running costs plus interest charges on the capital cost of the ship. Given guarantees in terms similar to those given by the Ministry of Transport in trooping days, a different complexion would be put on the matter of ship owners digging into their own resources and ordering new ships. It is one thing for the ship owners to convert old ships which have already paid their interest rates and their amortisation charges, but it is quite another proposition to charge fares related to completely new ships whose capital costs have to be met.
The question of design is also raised. A school ship designed from scratch would look more like an aircraft carrier than a passenger liner, and the educational benefit from a specially designed ship would he immeasurably greater than that from a converted ship. I will not go into details, but that is clearly so. Moreover, a specially designed school ship involving standardised patterns for sister-ships would bring down relative costs and would represent a potential export for British shipyards. It is ironic that, as a result of frequent calls at Hamburg, it may be the Germans on the Elbe and not the British on the Tyne or Clyde who will be building the world's first specially designed school ship, partly because so many influential Germans have come aboard, bringing their sons and daughters to carry out one of the chief functions of this experiment, which is that young people of one country should go into the homes of young people of another and that return hospitality should then be received.
The welcome in foreign ports highlights that pupils are impressed more by people


they meet than by venerable monuments. It is easier for a shipping company to lay on educational visits without wasting time than it is for individual teachers staying at hostels or hotels. Friendships formed in Bergen and Oslo and other ports during an afternoon or afternoon and evening have resulted in Norwegians coming the following summer to stay with Scots in Edinburgh and the West. There are many examples of this and it is a desirable trend.
There is what I consider to be an Aunt Sally—hon. Members may think it has greater substance—which is that school ships on a large scale would contribute to balance of payments difficulties. Equally, they can be seen as a hidden form of commerce, raising the level of world trade. I wish to draw attention to the fact that when the "Devonia" visited Bathurst in Gambia with 400 British and 400 French pupils travelling together, partly for international understanding and partly to improve the language of one group or the other—I suspect that the French learnt more than the British —it is estimated that about £15,000 was spent, including port charges, the cost of the organised bus tours to plantations, and gift buying.
A series of visits could be a significant source of sterling to developing countries. Although £90,000 or £100,000 may lot seem very much when compared with the Estimates we have recently been discussing, to a place the size of Gambia it would be significantly important and would be a drop at least in the right bucket.
Again, this is an example of the danger of drawing conclusions in the environment of what I am referring to again as the Departmental compartmentalisation of thought. Officials of education departments declare themselves to be agnostic about such relevant considerations to school ships as a whole, even if they are not relevant to their particular Ministry, and I hope that the hon. Lady will take a broad general view and not just the narrow view of her own Department, because it would be sad if this were to be either accepted or rejected merely on a narrow basis when clearly this transcends several Ministries.
I have one final suggestion. Easily the most effective way of using school

ships specially designed as such would be to take, possibly for two or three months, the whole term of a training college. The hon. Lady will know that recently there has been a great deal of discussion, not so much in Scotland, but in England, about the chronic shortage of training college places. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has repeatedly referred to this. Would not it be possible to arrange for a group of about 400 students to go for two or three months either round Africa, or on the way to India via East Africa. and at the same time do their training college work? It may be argued that this would be ludicrously expensive, that it would be out of all proportion to any enrichment gained—and I am not hiding it from the House that it would be expensive—but it would not be relatively that much more expensive than the money paid out year in and year out on transporting troops to Aden. Hong Kong, and Singapore.
Many of us are extremely worried about another critical situation. We are worried about pupils going from school at the age of 17 or 18 to a training college, and then perhaps to a university, and on completion of their training college education going straight back perhaps to the school where they were educated. Many of us are concerned about a system whereby young people go from one side of the teacher's desk to the other. I do not think that they make quite as good teachers as they might have done if they had their eyes opened, not only by going abroad—because abroad may be to Europe—but going to foreign parts—France, Germany, and Italy are not foreign parts; they are very much the same as we are—to a different culture, and to a different way of life. If this were done, I think that we would get in quality of teacher a very much higher return than we get on money spent in many other ways.
I repeat that what I am pleading for is not that the hon. Lady should wave a magic wand and bring all this about immediately, but that she should set up a committee to discuss all these arguments. This cannot be done on the Floor of the House. It is extremely complicated, but I hope that I have said enough to convince hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is worth looking into.


It may be that at the end of the day, for one reason or another, it will be considered impracticable, but it is worth while setting up a committee to look into this with great attention and sympathy.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: We are all greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for raising the question of school ships on this Adjournment debate. I had the honour and pleasure of accompanying him on the first experimental cruise of the "Dunera One of the things which impressed me was the reaction of the vast majority of the students who felt after that cruise that for the first time they knew their teacher. I think that that is very important.
Teachers who thought they knew the characters of children found that they had to make a new assessment. Many children realised that their teacher was a different sort of person than they had imagined. I recall that one youngster who did not like his teacher at the beginning of the voyage decided afterwards that his teacher was a great sport. A proper teach-pupil relationship is very important.
I can recall some amusing incidents, as I am sure can my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, the weather in the Bay was a bit "tough" and some of the children were ill. One bonny little girl of about 11 was quite ill, but had recovered by the time we arrived at Corunna. I said to her, "Never mind, it was worth it, wasn't it?" She replied, Yes, Sir, but I hope that we don't take the same road home." This little girl got over her sea sickness and was quite happy in the party which we took around Corunna.
The children saw the monument to Sir John Moore. It was wonderful to see their reactions when they visited this place so precious in our history. Their interest was stimulated by the fact that they were in the Spanish town where Sir John Moore was buried. We visited Gibraltar and Lisbon and the zest for inquiry and learning exhibited by these children was surprising. One was able to join in discussion groups on the decks where the children talked about all kinds of things,

I had an opportunity to talk to the students and to the ship's officers. I was taken on to the bridge and shown the navigation instruments. The importance of algebra and trigonometry to proper navigation was brought home to the children and many of them appreciated for the first time the important part which algebra and trigonometry play in everyday happenings.
My hon. Friend said that school ships would serve a better purpose than frigates, destroyers or warships. The traditional function of the British Navy, at least in peacetime, is to go round the world showing the flag. We now have a very small Navy. We do not go round the world showing the flag now, at least not to the extent that we used to do.
If ever there was a wonderful advertisement—if not for Great Britain, at least for Scotland—it was the morning when we berthed in Corunna. The quay was packed. They knew that this school ship was coming from Glasgow. There was a bagpipe band to greet us. When the children went ashore—bonnie Scottish children—it was a pleasure to be there. This was really showing the flag.

Mr. E. G. Willis: It was showing the tartan.

Mr. Bence: That may be so. This served a better purpose perhaps than if the Navy had put in.

Mr. Dalyell: I hope that my hon. Friend will not encourage the hideous myth that the Spaniards invented the bagpipes.

Mr. Bence: We were met on the quay by Basques playing Basque pipes. It is not for me to say whether that was more hideous than the Scottish bagpipe. I do not want to enter into any such controversy with my hon. Friend. It was thrilling both on arrival and departure to see the quay packed with Spanish people and the Basque band. It was exciting to see the admiration shown by the people of Corunna for 800 wonderful children from Renfrewshire, the West Lothians, Dunbartonshire, and a/1 over Scotland.
If we think in terms of building ships to give employment, it would be far batter in this age to build school ships because they employ the finishing trades. This helps shipbuilding employers to


keep their building teams together—that is, to keep their finishing trades together. If we are to think in terms of warships, hospital ships or school ships, school ships will create far more balanced employment in shipyards than warships.
I do not for one moment advocate building things merely to give people work. I believe in building things only if they are socially desirable and useful. To dig holes and fill them up again just for the sake of working is nonsense. I would not do it and I cannot accept it as a social philosophy. It is far better to use the resources of the Clyde, the Tyne, the Mersey, Burrow, or Northern Ireland to build ships which will be an advertisement to Britain. It would be far better to build school ships to sail to Leningrad, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and other places, because from this activity other commercial enterprises would spring. It would encourage people in the places visited to visit the country from which the children emanated.
I am sure that many of those people in Lisbon and Corunna who met our children from Scotland were encouraged themselves to visit Scotland. If these trips by school children are encouraged they will stimulate visits to our shores by foreign children. Many of us remember the au pair system between the wars. Children came here from France, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Spain on exchange visits with our children. This could happen on a large scale with the development of school ships. It is a worthwhile enterprise.
My hon. Friend said that the ships would have to be employed for at least ten and a half months of the year. I agree that we probably need an inquiry to study the economics of the matter. To run a ship for this purpose for ten and a half months a year might be very expensive, and it may take many years before we create a climate of acceptance of this as part of general education. But, of course, a ship could be converted in such a way that it could be used also for family holidays. There are great possibilities. Another use could be for teacher training.
I have not thought a great deal about this, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the general tendency in our country, and probably in most countries, is for a boy

or girl, having started school at the age of about 5, to go straight through to university. I have always thought that process to be undesirable. When my children left the sixth form I advised them to go to work before going on to further education. They went to work in factories and were all the better for it.
For children and young people to remain in the hothouse of education from infancy to adulthood without contact with the outside world is undesirable. I knew a young student who went to University College, Oxford, in 1946. Later, I asked him what he thought was the greatest benefit he had in going up to Oxford during that period. He told me that he and his fellow students of 18 or 19 years old felt that they were very lucky because the other students were young men and women who had served in the war and had experiences outside school life. They had maturity, and this had helped the younger students considerably. He felt that this education had been enhanced by his having had around him mature people with experience outside the intellectual and academic world.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian is quite young and must remember that it often takes thirty-five years for an idea to permeate our parliamentary system. I hope that my hon. Friend will see the day when his school ships became a reality.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. William Small: In lending my support to the endeavours of my hon. Friend the Member far West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) I recall that the first time I met him was at an Aberdeen Scottish Labour Party conference, seven or eight years ago. He was an even younger man then. We were living in the same hotel and it occurred to me at the time that he was a rather starry-eyed idealist. Since then I have seen his efforts, I see him today as an hon. Member of the House, and, having known him in this way, I do not want anyone to dismiss his idea of dual shipbuilding out of hand as being not a practical proposition, for it could offer much to the community, particularly our children.
I realise that my lion. Friend's proposition would require some critical examination, but I am satisfied, since we spend a good deal of money in other


ways—and I have in mind the care and prevention of delinquency—that for children to live in a ship, a self-contained community, for ten days or a fortnight would itself introduce some discipline and help to mould their character.
All children are not equal in a monetary sense and some are aware that their clothes are not as nice as others, that one child's father has a car while another has not, or that one has a television set and the other has not. After a few days in the sort of self-contained community on board ship the children would look at these material things in a different way and such a voyage might even lead to them taking a greater interest in their education.
I support this idea of my hon. Friend, despite the fact that he kept me up night after night at a Labour Party conference talking about similar things. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend getting the success that he has so far achieved.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I, too, wish to associate myself with the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) I passed through a period of indoctrination at various conferences, but had I not had that experience I should have been attracted to the conception of school ships as proposed by the hon. Member for West Lothian.
There are too few really imaginative ideas current today and anyone who contributes with idealistic conceptions—and this one is capable of being achieved—is doing a first-class job. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on the success he has so far had with his idea. If he will pardon my saying so, he has been exceedingly fortunate in having been able to get as far as this with his idea in the few years he has been struggling for it.
It is good for children to be brought into contact with the sea. I was brought into contact with it, and spent a number of years playing about with it. This is a national characteristic. Contact with the sea brings one into touch with something very permanent, enduring and fundamental to nature. It brings a sense of vastness and of power. Nothing can be so frightening as the sea at times, nor is

there anything so vast. This contact gives human beings a much sounder sense of reality, and a realisation of the things that matter. The more civilised we get, the more we tend to lose that contact—not with a great deal of benefit.
I am in favour of children visiting other countries. It broadens the mind and gives a meaning to things of which one has only read in books. When a child sees that what he has been reading about and learning really matters in the world and that he is just not wasting his time, his interest becomes that much greater. He will profit for the rest of his life from being brought into contact with the world, and relating what he sees to what he is being told and is learning. A child benefits in quite a number of other ways, too, particularly as he gets older.
I do not know the experience of other hon. Members, but one of our biggest problems in Edinburgh today is to know what to do with young children to prevent their tremendous destruction of all kind of things in the town—telephone kiosks, lamp standards, new buildings. Tens of thousands of pounds worth of damage are done every year in Edinburgh because, as a community, we do not know how properly to direct their energy into beneficial channels. That is a tremendous and a world-wide problem—

Mr. John Brewis: They would sink the ship.

Mr. Willis: I do not think so.
I think of the homes of some of these children, and of the well-worth-while efforts made by teachers in crowded classrooms. The teaching profession tries to do what it can, but the plain truth is that we as citizens have not done very much about it, otherwise the problem would not exist. If the children were given an experience of this kind, not simply for 10 days but for a longer period, we should be giving them something in which they could interest themselves and on which they could expend their energies and direct their attention.

Mr. Bence: My hon. Friend is a sailor of many year's standing. Could he tell us whether there is any truth in the saying, "Send your boy to sea. If there is anything in him, the sea will fetch it out."

Mr. Willis: It probably will fetch it out.
I do not think that this proposal would offer a complete solution to the problem I have just mentioned, but I am sure that it would help, and for that reason I think that it is good. As to cost, I am always amazed at the scrupulous care with which we examine the cost of things of this character and then, on the other hand, without hardly a thought vote millions of pounds for all sorts of things.

Mr. Bence: We often do not know what we are voting for.

Mr. Willis: Yes, we do not know half the time. In recent years we have had so many examples of £10 million, £20 million, £50 million, and even £100 million—

Mr. Bence: Poured down the drain.

Mr. Willis: I would not say that it was money entirely wasted because it has given men a great deal of scientific training and experience, but I feel that there is something wrong with society when we have to crib, cabin, and confine and ex amine meticulously to ensure that we do not spend too much on some things whilst on the other hand we spend vast sums with hardly any examination at all. This vast expenditure seems to a great number of people rather dubious at times.
Society is becoming more affluent. This is not thanks to the Government, although they always claim credit for it. It is due to the scientists who place in our hands every day increasing power to produce goods and to use the world's resources to add to the comforts and enjoyment of man. This has nothing to do with the Government, because the same thing happens in Russia as happens in Britain. We are becoming so affluent now that we ought to encourage these ideas and not be too mean about them. We should be bold and imaginative.
Why not build a school ship, or two school ships, and see what the result will be? Let us use them on a wider scale. Let us try to make provision for the poorer children to enjoy them, because they would probably benefit most from this experience. If we did this we should be doing good not only to the children but to ourselves. We should be doing things of which we could be justly proud as a nation and things which

would make the rest of the world respect us and look up to us. I hope that the noble Lady the Under-Secretary of State will be encouraging and will not stick too closely to the brief handed out to her. Let her show that she is attracted to the idea.

Mr. Bence: And show feminine courage.

Mr. Willis: Let the noble Lady do more than turn the idea down in an elegant manner. I hope that she will tell my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian that some of his ideas might be brought a little nearer to fruition as a result of this debate.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: No one can complain that we have taken a little longer than is usual for an Adjournment debate on this subject of school ships. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) not only on having earned an Adjournment, but on having selected a day on which he has had a bonus in time. I hope that he will be even more fortunate in the reply he receives from the noble Lady the Under-Secretary of State.
I give the noble Lady an invitation. The Lord Advocate is not here, neither is the Solicitor-General. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is probably not in the country. The Secretary of State for Scotland is probably snowbound somewhere around Argyll. Why does not she tear up that set of printed notes and let herself go? She has had plenty of advice. She has had it from—I shall not call him a sailor—an engine-room artificer of the Royal Navy, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). She has had the advice of a couple of engineers—

Mr. Willis: This is most insulting to the very honourable branch of engine-room artificer. Does my hon. Friend suggest that they are neither seamen nor engineers?

Mr. Ross: I am sorry. Before "engineer" insert "other". I should have said "two other engineers ". In addition, of course, the noble Lady has had the benefit of the enthusiasm and the idea which my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has certainly spread about Scotland for quite a long time.
It is more than just an idea. Kilmarnock is within Ayrshire, and the Ayrshire education authority has twice commissioned this ship for these trips, and it is to do it again. In this one authority, we have had experience over three years. I assure the hon. Lady that my life is not made easier by the fact that my daughter is at a school the headmaster of which thought that it would be unwise to interrupt the curriculum by allowing too many of them to go on the ship. I need not tell the noble Lady of the comments I receive, as though it had been my personal responsibility in not allowing her to go.
The educational value of this scheme has already been stressed. But it is more than that. Those children in Ayrshire, for the whole year before they go, save up, some of them taking small jobs, and they pay their own way.
It is time we recognised one of the saddening features of Scottish education. We have a very proud past, but we tend to cling to faded glories and forget that the world is changing and moving on, but we do not always move with it. If there has been one cause for criticism of Scottish education over the years, it has been the failure to experiment. Here is a chance.
Let us not worry about the cost. Today, we have had Supplementary Estimates for £59 million, without a whisper from anybody. The noble Lady is at the Dispatch Box for the first time today. The Minister of Education for England was asking for another £13 million. I shall put down a Motion of censure on the Scottish Education Department for spending too little. What are they afraid of? This is an imaginative venture. It has caught the public's imagination.
The Scottish Office is lagging behind Scottish public opinion and the opinion of parents, who are being pressed by their children about this matter. Nothing could be more educational or of more lasting benefit to education itself than

for the children to get out of the classroom. This is part of education. It would benefit the children greatly if they could get out of the classroom and to travel on a ship, as one group did this summer, through the Kiel Canal to Stockholm, on to Leningrad, back to Copenhagen and then back to Scotland at a cost of £36, which the children paid themselves, with their teachers and with lecturers from Moray House.
Surely the noble Lady appreciates—and I say this as a teacher—that by this method children can have a new and interesting approach to history, geography, arithmetic—and to life and the world. This is not something which should be dismissed with arguments about £. s. d. We should consider its value in connection with the rounded characters, new ideas, new hobbies and new interests which might spring from this experience.
To my mind, every child in Scotland should have the benefit of this at least once in his lifetime. Why do not we break out and have a go at this in Scotland? The "Dunera" is a household name in Ayrshire, Dumfries, Dunbarton, and certainly in West Lothian. We talk about scrapping and building ships. Why not add to this—scrap and build and build and educate? This would be a benefit, incidentally, to the shipyards, but the really important thing is the children, their education and the lasting benefit to the nation.
My hon. Friend has asked for a committee to go into this matter. If the educational benefits which we have already appreciated in Ayrshire have arisen from makeshift ships, think of the real benefits, the additional controlled discipline and formal education which would come from a purpose-built ship. Indeed, as my hon. Friend rightly said, we should think of the benefits which would accrue to this country if other nations ordered the ships from us as a result of our pioneering. This cannot be discounted.
Surely my hon. Friend was very modest in his request that we should have a committee to look into this and that educationists, ship architects, and so on, should get together to find out what can be done. The Scottish Education Department could go into the matter of the full use of the ship and consider alternative uses for it


when it was not used for educational purposes to ensure that it was an economic proposition.
The last thing that I want the noble Lady to say, as she has said before, is that the Education Department will give guidance but not cash. If that is all she proposes to say, I hope that she does not rise to speak at all. Here the noble Lady has a chance. I wonder how John Buchan would have approached this. I wonder whether the noble Lady, as John Buchan's daughter-in-law, will be as adventurous as I am sure he would have been.
I do not say that the noble Lady should go overboard with enthusiasm, but let her accept my hon. Friend's modest proposal. If she does so, she will be only falling in line with the views of thousands of people in Scotland and she certainly will show that Scotland is determined to experiment and again to lead.

10.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): We are all very much indebted to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for raising an important and exciting subject—the ship school scheme. He has done it with his usual enthusiasm and, as was said by one lion. Member, has brought a great deal of imagination to a subject which he has made very much his own. As the hon. Member could not, unfortunately, have his Adjournment debate before, we are glad that he had the luck to have a little more time and that he was so ably supported by his colleagues on the benches opposite.
I should like, first, to acknowledge the courtesy of the hon. Member in having sent me notice of the matters which he wished to raise, thus enabling me to give a good deal of consideration to them. 1 am attracted, of course, by the persuasive invitation of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), but I ask him to wait a bit and then I will see whether I can respond to him.
The hon. Member for West Lothian has made a great many points, but I do not think that I can deal with all of them. We could have a fascinating discussion, for example, about whether sea sickness was, as the hon. Member described it, an educational experience. That is some-

thing which I would rather challenge. It would, perhaps, be best if I addressed myself to the two main points raised by the hon. Member: first, that the Government should take the initiative now in going in for ship schools in a big way; and, secondly, that as a first move, we should set up a committee to examine the whole matter and to report.
Before doing so, I should like to say a brief word about the work of the British India Steam Navigation Company and to say how much we acknowledge its pioneering work, first with the "Dunera" and more recently with the "Devonia". I was particularly interested to hear the hon. Member for Kilmarnock say that his local authority had made use of these arrangements twice and would probably do so on a third occasion.
The hon. Member for West Lothian, referred to the letter which I sent him on 8th January on my behalf and that of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. I stand by what I said in that letter when I described the present arrangements for school voyages in the two ships as
an imaginative venture of considerable importance ".
As my colleague the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) said a year ago, the scheme is
an excellent example of private enterprise working in the public interest ".—[OFFICAL REPORT, 24th January, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 182.]
In Scotland, we have always taken a close interest in the ship school scheme. After a slow start, education authorities were quick to take advantage of it. Since April, 1961, when the "Dunera" made her first school voyage, no less than 32 of the 35 Scottish authorities have taken part by sending pupils on the cruises. In England also, the scheme has been a great success. The total number of pupils who have so far taken part is about 40,000, of whom I am glad to say that as many as 8,000 have come from Scotland.
The lion. Member for West Lothian would probably like me to pay tribute to the man who in large measure originally inspired the idea of ship schools—Mr. John Kinloch, at one time a headmaster in Renfrewshire and now living in Dunbartonshire. It was his determination over a great many years which brought results.
Hon. Members opposite would wish me also to pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Lothian himself, because, as deputy director of studies aboard the "Dunera", he has helped to get this scheme off to a good start. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) thought that the scheme was valuable in building character. With that I certainly agree. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) spoke, in particular, of the value of voyages at sea. With that I also agree—sailing being one of my hobbies, if I ever get the time. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) regaled us with some of his experiences with children, which we all very much enjoyed. We are, therefore, all agreed on the merits of the scheme.
The hon. Member's two main points were: first, that the Education Departments should discuss with the shipping interests the possibility of building six 15,000-ton specially designed ship schools, under a guarantee of a twenty-year charter by the Government; and, secondly, that a "heavyweight committee" should examine these ideas. He rested his main argument on the educational value of school voyages. He said that the case stands or falls "on academic considerations".
But he also brought in a great many other arguments, concerning shipping and shipbuilding capacity, employment, the balance of payments, and the export trade, and he reinforced his position by a close analysis of the educational benefits of the present experimental arrangements and sought to argue that it is much better for the peace of the world to build ship schools than warships.
The hon. Member probably knows that I have always been strongly convinced of the value of travel. That is why it is with very real regret that I have to tell him straight away that however good the present scheme of educational cruises I cannot agree to his suggestions, for two main reasons: first, we consider that the initiative for ship school schemes should remain where it is now, with private companies, which have shown that they can carry it out with successful results; and, secondly—although many hon. Members thought that we should not consider this matter—there is the ever-

present problem of finance in the context of education as a whole.
If we were to do as he suggests the Government would be assuming an open-ended commitment. If the scheme were to develop as he proposed with such energy the contingent liability under the suggested guarantee and the additional grants to education authorities would have to be charged on the funds available for the education service as a whole.
I believe that it was the hon. Member himself who said, "After all, there is something similar in the charter arrangements for troopships, for which the Government make a long-term commitment involving specific liabilities. "In a sense, no doubt, the charter arrangements for troopships offer an analogy, but I put it to him that what he has suggested for ship schools does not afford quite an exact analogy. It would take me beyond my responsibility to go into any detail on the chartering of troopships, or the ways in which we could use them, but we must remember that the Government's responsibilities for seeing that troops can be moved about when required are clear and direct, and what the hon. Member is asking us to do is to assume a similarly clear and direct responsibility for school voyages. This is a very different thing, and as I have said, we do not consider that the provision of ship schools should at the moment be added to our total commitments.
I agree that in considering an issue of this kind it is perfectly proper to take into account all the arguments of a general kind which the hon. Member has developed. But, as he himself said, the case stands or falls by the educational considerations. With that I agree. That is why I said in my letter of 8th January to the hon. Member that the matter must be viewed against the background of the priority needs in education.
The hon. Member thought that this was a narrow view. He called it by a word which beats all words used in Government Departments — "compartmentalisation" —but it is surely the job of Governments to get their priorities right. The fact is that the demands which the education service makes on the Exchequer increase all the time, and quite rightly. When ideas involving new expenditure are advanced we must always ask ourselves the


question: if more money were ours to dispense would, or should, this be the first charge upon it? This is the acid test.
I do not intend to debate the economics of education. We can all of us think of a long list of items, great and small, in the schools and in further education that we should like to see undertaken. We all have very special schemes of our own. The education authorities—and the Government, for that matter—have to try to keep a reasonable balance in deciding on new expenditure on these things which are put forward, whenever we have a chance of doing so.
Despite the hon. Member's view that the case he has made stands or falls on academic considerations, I recognise, just as he does, that there are other very important factors. The hon. Member has brought out many different arguments, including especially the need to keep the shipyards occupied. This, of course, gives us all a great deal of concern. It is a matter in which many of us have taken much interest over a long period. I quite agree that orders would help our shipyards. On the other hand, I think that the hon. Member would agree that building specially designed ship schools would not in itself solve the long term problems of the ship building industry, which, unfortunately, we cannot debate tonight.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East, laid great stress on the importance of showing the flag. Of course I agree with all that. I agree that one gets experience in travelling overseas in association with others of the same school which one could not get in any other way. The hon. Member for West Lothian also brought out the question whether we could not have a scheme occasionally for putting teachers in training on a particular voyage. He felt —I am sure that he is right on this—that that would give teachers a very much wider experience than they have when possibly they go to a school in the area in which they were trained.
Yet even if we had a scheme of school ships of this nature on a very large scale I think that in our present state of teacher shortage there would be a good many organisational difficulties in taking them away. It would surely put a rather heavy burden on the lecturing staffs of colleges of education if they had to try

at the same time to run courses on ships and in the colleges. I think that it is clear that the main training must be done in the ordinary classroom.
The hon. Member has urged that we should at least have a heavyweight committee to examine the proposal and to report. I am sure it would give a very thorough report on the scope of educational voyages and on the value of present arrangements for cruises, but the central issue, the crux of it all—we must face it—is finance.
Were the Government to appoint such a committee it would be really quite misleading, because it would create the impression that we and the education authorities were in a position, subject to an assessment of the education considerations, to carry through at an early date the far-reaching scheme put forward by the hon. Member. Although it is certainly a temptation, with no other Minister with financial responsibility present, I do not really feel that I can respond to the persuasive invitation of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, because I really would not like to imply that, by appointing a committee we would he prepared to finance action on any findings which it might put forward.
It is worth recalling that the British India Steam Navigation Company has a steering committee, as it is called, of very distinguished people in education to advise it on the arrangements it now makes for school voyages. I should have thought that, in the light of experience so far, this committee is in a good position to advise the company about the likely shape of future demands for school cruises as well as on the practical arrangements. I think that a study by that committee would be more relevant than one by a committee formed by the Government, since it has practical experience of the job.
As the hon. Member for West Lothian already knows from my letter of 8th January, the Education Departments are ready to give the company any advice they can about the likely demand from the schools and, therefore, in order that we can keep our own assessments up to date—I agree that they are not yet in any precise form—we will, of course, keep in touch with the directors of education to find out about views on these matters in their own areas.
But, as I said at the beginning, education authorities generally have given the present scheme a good measure of support. Some at least are prepared to give financial assistance, as they are entitled to do, to help parents with the payments of fares. I admit that in some areas there has been difficulty, as the hon. Gentleman said, in letting pupils and teachers away from school in term time because of the dislocation that can result—especially at a time of teacher shortage in Scotland. But the authorities know that taking part in a school voyage in term time can be accepted as equivalent to school attendance under the statutory provisions.
I wish that I could have given more encouragement to the hon. Member. I am really not in a position to answer the hon. Member for Kilmarnock about what John Buchan would have done in similar circumstances because, happily, in his novels he did not have the restraint of the Treasury behind him. But the Government are responsible for the finances of the country, and, with the thousand and one things we want to do in education, however good this scheme may be, my colleagues and I are bound to look at the needs of education as a whole.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I am obliged to the hon. Lady for leaving me two minutes in which to

intervene in a Scottish debate. I intervene because the importance of this subject transcends even the importance of Scotland. This is a matter in which English children are just as interested.
I was much impressed by the debate. The hon. Lady gave us a little solace. But she let the cat out of the bag by indicating that the Treasury was to blame. When we talk of priorities we must do so in terms of resources. What we are concerned with here is that the shipbuilding and steel industries are facing heavy redundancy while society as a whole is bearing considerable expense in dealing with unemployment.
No more profitable use could be made of some of our shipyards than the building of such ships as these. We would be glad to compete for such a job on the Wear. The importance of a committee such as that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is that it would determine the educational priorities. We can determine the priorities of our resources.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.